Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Local Government Reform

Mr. Jon Owen Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he intends to make clear his detailed plans for local government reform.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): May I start by welcoming the hon. Members for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) to their new positions on the Opposition Front Bench. The answer to Question 1 is as soon as possible.

Mr. Jones: Why is it that the Prime Minister spent part of the weekend discussing subsidiarity with the rest of the European Governments yet when there is an opportunity to put subsidiarity into effect through local government reform in Wales the Government do not take it?

Mr. Hunt: The local government reform that we are pursuing in Wales is as a result of a combined agreement at the outset between the counties and the districts that there should be unitary authorities in Wales. I recognise that there is also strong feeling, which has been expressed to me by the local authority associations, that there should be an assembly in Wales. But I say to the hon. Gentleman and all those who propose such an assembly that we have been through all that before. The people of Wales rejected an assembly by a majority of four to one.

Mr. Rod Richards: In his consultation paper the Secretary of State said that he sought consensus. Has he received a submission from the Labour party?

Mr. Hunt: Although we have had the most widespread consultation, I have to tell the House that I am still waiting to hear from the Labour party about what it would propose on local government reform. A manifesto published at the time of the last election says:
We will create"—
this is a Labour Government—
a single tier of 25 to 30 unitary local authorities.
I understand that the previous figure was 17 to 25. I hope that the Labour party will make up its mind and tell me what its plans are so that I can take them into account in the consultation.

Mr. Murphy: The Secretary of State still has not told the House or the people of Wales whether there will be local government reform according to the timetable which he has already outlined. Does he have Treasury approval

for the local government plans? There are some estimates that it will cost as much as £50 million. If that is the case, can he today give us a guarantee that there will be no adverse effects on the spending proposals for Wales that he intends to make in the next few weeks?

Mr. Hunt: I reaffirm the statement that I made in the House on 3 March in which I proposed the creation of 23 unitary authorities in Wales. I reaffirm the timetable that I announced then. The new unitary authorities will be operational as from 1995. I say to the hon. Gentleman again that there is still time for the Labour party to make detailed proposals rather than merely throw out figures of 25 to 30. The preliminary signs are that if we moved in the direction proposed in the Labour party's manifesto, there would be costs over and above those of my present proposals. Will the hon. Gentleman please make up his mind and tell us his and his party's plans?

Homeless People

Mr. Martyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the number of homeless people in (a) Wales and (b) Clwyd, South-West.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): In the quarter April to June 1992, 5,919 people were accepted as homeless by local councils in Wales. However, specific figures are not available for Clwyd, South-West.

Mr. Martyn Jones: In the light of the appalling situation shown up by the national figures, is the Minister aware of the proposals contained in a consultation paper issued by Tai Cymru which, if implemented, would take away the powers of Welsh rural housing associations to deal with rural homelessness, by giving the powers to urban bodies? There would be only 10 such bodies and they would be based in urban areas so it is likely that they would not be able to deal with rural homelessness.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the important work of Tai Cymru and the housing association movement in Wales. They have been an example of tremendous success and I want to see that going forward. The consultation process is ongoing. I and Tai Cymru are maintaining an open mind about exactly how it can be taken forward.

Heart Disease

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the incidence of coronary heart disease in Wales in 1980; and what was the equivalent figure in the latest year for which statistics are available.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Information on the incidence of coronary heart disease in Wales is not available centrally. However, there were 9,706 deaths of Welsh residents from coronary heart disease in 1980–345 deaths per 100,000 population—compared with 9,541 deaths in 1991, a decline to 331 per 100,000 population.

Mr. Coombs: The figures are encouraging. I am sure that the House would want to congratulate Heartbeat Wales on its campaign and on reducing the numbers of people suffering from premature coronary heart disease in


Wales. Can my hon. Friend tell the House what more he thinks can be done to reduce the figures still further, because they remain a cause for some concern?

Mr. Jones: I wish to accept my hon. Friend's congratulations on behalf of Heartbeat Wales and the health promotion authority for Wales. They have begun their work well and there are already encouraging signs of a reduction in smoking among adults. We are taking forward the possibility of other measures, including opportunist testing for cholesterol.

Dr. Kim Howells: The Minister will know that a general reduction in the level of blood pressure tends to reduce the incidence of heart disease quite dramatically. Can he tell me why the good work of Heartbeat Wales and general practitioners everywhere in Wales has been so massively undermined in the past week by the stupid and inept handling of the coal crisis? Does he not know that that has sent the blood pressure of Wales sky high? What is he going to do about it?

Mr. Jones: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should adopt his own advice and not raise his blood pressure unnecessarily, when we can all do better with rational discussion.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the figure and percentage of male unemployment in Wales at the latest available date.

Mr. David Hunt: A total of 102,200 and 13.5 per cent.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State recall telling the recent Conservative party conference that it has been a good year for the party? Although I appreciate that his colleagues do not tell him much these days, may I remind him of the mass unemployment, record bankruptcies, escalating repossessions, the debacle over the exchange rate mechanism, the troubles over Maastricht and the crisis in the mining industry? If this is a good year, will the Secretary of State outline what constitutes a bad one?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman should think carefully before he downplays our achievements in Wales, where thousands of new jobs have come to declining coal mining areas. By our positive partnership in Wales we have shown the rest of the United Kingdom what can be done to bring new investment and jobs to those parts of Wales.

Mr. Roger Evans: Can my right hon. Friend assist us by saying what new initiatives he has in mind for economic development in Wales?

Mr. Hunt: I am happy to announce that I am issuing a consultation paper on the establishment of the Welsh economic council, because I am determined to build on the positive partnership that we have in Wales, which has brought us those new jobs and investment.

Madam Speaker: Question No. 5——

Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I would normally take points of order at the end of questions but if I have breached our Standing Orders I must listen now.

Mr. Rowlands: Question No. 4 was on male unemployment. They are closing pits in my constituency——

Madam Speaker: Order. I am genuinely interested if I have breached Standing Orders. I have not done so. I shall call the hon. Gentleman as soon as I can on some other occasion.

Mrs. Clwyd: May we tell the Secretary of State exactly what his achievements have been since he became Secretary of State. Unemployment has increased by 46,500. That is his achievement and every one of us feels that he—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady is responding on Question 4. As a Front-Bench Member she is perfectly entitled to do so. If the hon. Gentleman on the Back Benches has anything further to say, perhaps he will see me after Question Time.

Mrs. Clwyd: In case the Secretary of State missed the point, I said that since he became Secretary of State for Wales his achievement is 46,500 people unemployed in Wales. We all feel that his answers are totally unconvincing. It is clear that he was never told, never consulted and never informed about job losses in the coal industry. Does he realise that Welsh people are fed up with having no clout and no voice in the Cabinet? Surely any self-respecting Minister who has been treated like a tea boy outside the board room door should resign, particularly when the Government have shown how incompetent they are, how many lies they have told, and how bankrupt they are. It is time for them to give up and for the Minister to resign.

Madam Speaker: Order. That was somewhat remiss of the hon. Lady—[Interruption.] Order. I am sure that the hon. Lady would not want to leave that impression in the Official Report. Would she like to rephrase it?

Mrs. Clwyd: How misleading the Minister's tenure as Secretary of State has been if he claims that he has reduced unemployment. He certainly has not. He has increased it by 46,500 since he came into office. Let him explain that.

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Lady has made a number of accusations, one of which was that I was in ignorance. If blissful ignorance were a reason for resignation, there would not be many hon. Members on the Opposition Benches. Unemployment in Wales has fallen from just under 180,000 in 1986 to just under 130,000 today. Furthermore, I am pleased to be able to announce today an investment package involving a further £10 million of Government regional assistance, bringing 1,300 new jobs to Wales and safeguarding 500 other jobs. Government investment for regional assistance this year has meant that we have already made offers totalling £50 million, and more than 9,000 new and safeguarded jobs are forecast. That is action on the Government's part and we intend to bring new jobs to Wales.

Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat now. We must now move to Question 5.

Hospital Trusts

Mr. Gareth Wardell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what formal mechanism he will use to monitor hospital trusts in Wales.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: As well as monitoring activity and performance by district health authorities and OP fund holders, Welsh Office monitoring of NHS trusts will be centred around the business plans which all new trusts are required to produce each year. That will be in addition to the accountability to the public. New trusts are expected to hold an annual general meeting, produce an annual report and publish audited accounts.

Mr. Wardell: As someone who is extremely dissatisfied with the lack of proper monitoring of hospital trusts that the Minister has just announced, may I ask what he will do to ensure that early-warning signs are in place if those trusts get into financial difficulty? When they do, will he pick up the tab if they are in debt?

Mr. Jones: Officials in the Welsh Office are already considering how best to monitor the business plans. I envisage that to be an ongoing process so that it can work as helpfully as possible.

Mr. Conway: Is my hon. Friend aware of the large number of patients from mid and north Wales who use the excellent facilities supplied at the ear, nose and throat hospital in Shrewsbury? Will he ensure that, when monitoring the position, he also keeps a weather eye on what is happening on the other side of the border? If the suggested plans are carried out to move that hospital to the east, it would not only inconvenience a great number of my constituents in Shrewsbury, but greatly inconvenience patients from mid and north Wales who use the hospital's excellent facilities.

Mr. Jones: Yes, I am aware of the position. My hon. Friend is right to raise that important matter, which I trust will be fully taken into consideration.

Mr. Morgan: The Government's favourite theme song at the moment is, "I'm in the mood for U-turns"—do U-turns also apply to the formation of national health service trusts? I should like to know that before the Government continue with the disastrous policy in Wales where, so far, there is fortunately only one trust hospital. The Government now insist on creating a split between the purchaser and the provider, while the electricity industry is confusing the role of purchaser and provider. Does the Secretary of State agree that the Government's hallmark has been first, meddling, then bungling, and finally—I hope that this will be confirmed later today—backtracking?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman must curb his impatience to hear about the further progress that I hope we shall make. Meanwhile, I assure him that all the representations received will be fully considered in the evaluation of NHS trust applications. No trust applications will be approved unless my right hon. Friend and I are convinced that they will mean an improvement for patients.

Hospital Provision

Mr. Richards: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to visit Clwyd to discuss hospital provision; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so at present, but I am hoping to visit Ysbyty Glan Clwyd next month.

Mr. Richards: Is my hon. Friend aware that Ysbyty Glan Clwyd is one of the best hospitals in the land? When he visits it will he bear in mind that the workers, doctors and residents in the hospital's vicinity eagerly await his decision on the formation of a trust for the Glan Clwyd group of hospitals?

Mr. Jones: It would be invidious for me to agree with my hon. Friend that that hospital is the best, but I agree that it is one of Wales's very fine hospitals. Our decision on that application will be announced as soon as possible. I know that my hon. Friend looks forward to that announcement with interest.

Mr. Hanson: When the Secretary of State visits Clwyd will he consider the fact that, on 9 April, four of the five Labour Members of Parliament elected in those constituencies proposed a programme opposing opt-out hospitals? We want to oppose the opting out of hospitals in Clwyd. When the Secretary of State is in my county will he come to visit the Point of Ayr colliery in my constituency, which is closing with 1,000 job losses? Will he gain from the lessons to be learnt from meeting the mineworkers and their families, and will he learn from me that health does not just involve hospitals, but is about prevention, unemployment and other factors that matter to people—which the Government are taking away from them?

Mr. Jones: I am looking forward to visiting Clwyd next month when I shall visit Ysbyty Glan Clwyd. I assure the hon. Gentleman that his and every other representation on new trusts will be carefully considered. I can do no better than repeat the assurance that I have already made: no approvals will be given unless my right hon. Friend and I are convinced that they will be of advantage to patients.

Mr. John Marshall: When my hon. Friend speaks of hospital provision, will he confirm that NHS hospital trusts now treat many more patients than they did 18 months ago? Is that not a sign of progress and should we not praise the work of the trusts instead of denigrating it?

Mr. Jones: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend's sentiments. There is only one example of a trust in Wales, the Pembrokeshire trust. After its first four months, the Pembrokeshire trust is already showing worthwhile increases of both in-patients and out-patients. Such progress should be hailed.

Mrs. Clwyd: In making hospital provision, does the Welsh Office recognise the link between unemployment and ill health? Is the hon. Gentleman going to make provision for the massive number of unemployed who will come on stream in Wales due to Government policies? Does he recognise that 25 per cent. of the Rhondda's population is permanently sick—three times the number of permanently sick in the Prime Minister's constituency of Huntingdon? Does the hon. Gentleman recognise what


unemployment does both to the unemployed and to their families, and how it causes ill health among those families? Will he recognise that important fact and make provision for it?

Mr. Jones: I can reassure the hon. Lady that that provision is already in place in the strategies for health that we are implementing well in Wales. The importance of trying to make health gains among vulnerable groups is already identified as a specific target on which we are determined to make progress.

Infrastructure

Mr. Dafis: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much is currently allocated by his Department to road and rail infrastructure projects within (a) Ceredigion and (b) Pembrokeshire; and if he will publish an estimated figure for infrastructure expenditure by his Department in Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire for 1993–94.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): In 1992–93 some £10.5 million is directly allocated to road projects in Dyfed. Additional expenditure is incurred by local authorities using credit approvals and revenue support grant provided by the Welsh Office.
Expenditure decisions for 1993–94 will be announced following the public expenditure survey. Expenditure figures are not available by district. Government funding of British Rail does not come through the Welsh Office.

Mr. Dafis: May I remind the Minister of the importance of upgrading the A40 as a way of enhancing, among other things, the role of Fishguard as the gateway to the Republic of Ireland? Will the Welsh Office and the Minister support EC proposals for such an upgrading, which does not involve driving a motorway through a national park and which is a distortion of the situation? Will the Welsh Office commit funds to this upgrading, and will it ask for EC funds for the same proposal?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am glad to tell the hon. Gentleman that I agree about the importance of the A40. Since 1979, we have spent more than £90 million on the A40 and on the A477 in Dyfed; and almost £80 million has been spent on the M4 in that area. Furthermore, I am happy to tell him that about nine major trunk road schemes costing £81 million are programmed in Dyfed. Six of those schemes are on the A40; one is on the A477 and others are on the A483 and the A487.
Of course we shall consider any proposals from the European Commission for improving communications, but, as I have already said, we do not approve of motorways being built through national parks.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the Minister give a clear undertaking that the pre-election promises on infrastructure expenditure in Wales will not be cut in the current spending round?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I cannot, alas, give the hon. Gentleman any such assurance. No Minister would ever give such an assurance in advance of the public expenditure survey round. I am sure that he will appreciate that there is going to be a very difficult PES round, but we shall of course try to adhere to our priorities.

Abattoirs

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received on the effect of EC directives on small abattoirs in Wales.

Mr. David Hunt: Several.

Mr. Jones: The Secretary of State will be aware of the excellent news for Anglesey in the form of the opening of the Gaerwen meat plant. I congratulate the farming unions, the local authorities, the Welsh Development Agency and others who have worked so hard to reopen it.
The Secretary of State is aware that the main concern for small abattoirs has been the introduction of hygiene regulations by the European Community, which could lead to small abattoirs facing bills from veterinary surgeons of up to £40 an hour. That would virtually destroy the small abattoir industry in Wales, so can he assure us that small abattoirs will be exempt from the charges so that they can continue their excellent work?

Mr. Hunt: I am rather disappointed that the hon. Gentleman left out the Welsh Office from the list of those to whom he paid tribute. I am very pleased indeed that the £5 million investment by McIntosh Reynolds will go ahead, creating 230 jobs. I pay tribute to the officials in my office who, with all the agencies and local authorities that the hon. Gentleman mentioned, have been working extremely hard to make sure that the project goes ahead. I am sure that it was just an oversight on the hon. Gentleman's part.
I recognise that supervision by official veterinarians is a requirement of the directive. There may well be an increase in cost for the industry, but we have written to local authorities encouraging them to take practical measures to keep those costs down. I shall bear in mind the hon. Gentleman's point.

Learning Difficulties

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has to improve the status of children and adults with learning difficulties—mental handicap—in Wales; and if he will widen the scope of educational training and employment opportunities available to them.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Our unique and successful mental handicap strategy has provided the impetus to enable people with learning difficulties to share the same opportunities and status as other members of the community.

Mr. Michael: Does the Minister recognise that there is a dearth of day care opportunities for adults with learning difficulties? Against that background, the shortage of education and training opportunities and, above all, of job opportunities for adults with learning difficulties is a major problem for those people and for their carers. Will the Minister undertake to hold a proper inquiry into that matter and make specific proposals for adequate services?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that this year's strategy, involving the spending of about £41.5 million, will be relaunched next year. When that happens, there will be increased emphasis on education as a core service and a clear focus on the important period of adolescence. I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's considerable interest in the South Glamorgan training and


enterprise council's Track 2000 scheme. He will know that the local TEC funds 35 places under that scheme. Every effort is being made to cater for those with special needs who are eligible for help under the employment action programme. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall keep a careful eye on the situation.

Housing Statistics

Mr. Jonathan Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest figures for housing starts and completions undertaken by Housing for Wales/Tai Cymru.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that Housing for Wales is on course to a record of more than 4,000 completions this year.

Mr. Evans: I congratulate my former colleagues in Housing for Wales and the Welsh housing associations on that splendid achievement. Among my hon. Friends and, I think, throughout Wales, there is recognition of the importance of maintaining investment in our housing associations in the years ahead. During the election, there were questions about whether those commitments would be met. I ask my hon. Friend to note, please, that the success that he has reported today must be maintained in the years ahead through the Government maintaining their investment.

Mr. Jones: I hear what my hon. Friend says. Our arrangements have been successful at levering in outside sectors. I know that he will understand when I say that I cannot anticipate the public expenditure round.

Dr. Marek: The Minister knows that, for many years, councils have been selling council houses in Wales and that they have hundreds of millions of pounds which he and the Welsh Office stop them spending on the building of further council houses. It would be a help in getting rid of the present recession if the hon. Gentleman allowed local authorities to spend that money on building more housing in Wales. Why will he not do that?

Mr. Jones: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has got his figures wrong. At the start of this financial year, local councils had £32.7 million of capital receipts, which they are encouraged to use. Over and above that, after allowing for all redemptions, the housing revenue accounts of Welsh local councils mean that local people are having to repay a net debt of almost £1 billion.

Roads

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what has been the total spending by central Government on roads in Wales since 1979; and how many miles of motorway and trunk roads have been laid since that year.

Sir Wyn Roberts: Since 1979, total net spending by central Government on the roads programme in Wales is over £2 billion, including £397 million transport grant. Twenty-two miles of motorway and more than 151 miles of trunk road have been completed. Seven schemes totalling almost 17 miles are under construction.

Mr. Knox: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the level of road building in Wales since he became a Minister

more than 13 years ago. Does he agree that the road building programme has been a considerable help in attracting inward investment to Wales?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his congratulations to the Welsh Office and to me on this extensive road programme, which has undoubtedly been of considerable assistance in attracting inward investment. It is as well to remind the House that last year we had a record year for inward investment and attracted 208 projects, costing £1.1 billion in terms of investment and creating or safeguarding some 16,779 jobs. This year, between January and September, we attracted 159 projects, costing £816 million and creating or safeguarding 11,069 jobs. Today, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced 17 projects, creating 1,300 jobs and safeguarding 500 more.

Mr. Hain: Does the Minister recall that, last year, he gave the House the commitment that he would proceed with the construction of the missing link of the A465 between Aberdulais and Glynneath in this financial year, if possible? There is still no sign of that work starting. Therefore, may I have an absolute assurance that that project will not fall victim to the autumn statement next month if it slips over into next year?

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am happy to tell the hon. Gentleman that we continue to attach considerable importance to the scheme and are spending nearly £3 million this year on advance works. A start on the main works will be made when resources permit.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest employment figures for Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. David Hunt: In June 1992, according to the latest available figure, the civilian work force in employment in Wales numbered 1,146,000. We are lucky in Wales to have a good positive partnership, and I very much hope that the Welsh economic council, whose establishment I announced today, will build on that. I am happy to tell the House that I shall want the council to address the following issues: first, the need to continue to train a highly skilled work force; secondly, the need to keep Wales at the top of the inward investment league table; thirdly, support for small businesses; fourthly, creation of an enterprise culture; fifthly, enhanced use of local suppliers; sixthly, an export drive for Wales; seventhly, diversification and expansion of our economy; and, finally, the need to expand our high technology sector and establish further centres for research and development.

Mr. Wigley: We have just had a statement that should have been made on the Floor of the House so that Members of Parliament could ask questions. Interestingly, there was no reference to the need to raise per capita incomes in Wales, which have dropped dramatically in the past 10 years. Is the Secretary of State aware of the devastation felt in Wales as established factories shed labour and small companies go bankrupt, to which must be added the pit closures of the past week? Does he realise that it is not just a question whether the messenger forgot to reach him with a message about the closures? It is a question of why he was not involved in the decisions being


taken on these vital matters. How can the right hon. Gentleman continue in that job when his fellow Cabinet Ministers have so little confidence in him?

Mr. Hunt: The hon. Gentleman criticises me for making a statement but I must refer him to his question:
To ask the Secretary of State for Wales, what are the latest employment figures for Wales; and if he will make a statement.
At nationalisation, Wales had 220 pits and the coal industry employed 123,000 people. Before last week's announcement we were down to two pits—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]. Before the announcement on 20 August, we were down to two pits employing just over 1,000 people. The answer is that Wales is not to be pessimistic about the future but must go out and get new jobs. The new jobs that have come to Wales mean that overall unemployment in Wales has fallen below the United Kingdom average this year for the first time since 1924. The hon. Gentleman should be applauding that—not talking down our achievements.

Mr. Rowlands: It is a cruel deception for the Secretary of State to pretend that he will match job losses through these announcements. How many jobs has he announced today for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, where we have lost nearly 4,000 jobs at Hoover, where firms have been closed, where male unemployment is more than 20 per cent. and where two thirds of the jobs created over the past five years have been part time?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give me a simple answer to a simple question? Did he manage either last night or at today's Cabinet meeting to get a reprieve for the Taff Merthyr colliery, on the basis that it was never meant to be closed this month or, more specifically, next Friday?

Mr. Hunt: I recognise that the timing was changed, but on 20 August British Coal made an announcement with a view to the closure of the Taff Merthyr colliery.
I shall let the hon. Gentleman have details of the jobs that have been brought to Merthyr. If he examines the inward investment and regional assistance that have come to Wales this year, he will find that we have brought tens of thousands of jobs to Wales, and that we shall continue to do.

Mr. Wigley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I take points of order at the end of questions.

Mr. Wigley: In view of the entirely inadequate reply to my question, I give notice that I wish to raise on the Adjournment the inadequate apology of the Secretary of State for unemployment in Wales.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is a skilled parliamentarian and I have noted what he has said.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

Stipends

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how much income the Church Commissioners expect from parish and diocesan contributions for stipends during the current financial year; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Michael Alison (Second Church Estates Commissioner, representing the Church Commissioners): We expect that parishes will raise about £65 million towards stipends this year. This represents just over 40 per cent. of their total cost.

Mr. Greenway: Will my right hon. Friend accept that we must not become involved in the law of diminishing returns on the number of clergy to do the job and that the Church will die in that sense if we do? Will he ensure that sufficient money is raised by one means or another to pay enough clergy to do the job? Has he read yesterday's sermon by one of his constituents, the Archbishop of York? What view does he take of that?

Mr. Alison: That was a somewhat double-barrelled supplementary question—perhaps I should address the second barrel of it. The Archbishop of York is a constituent and friend of mine, but that does not mean that I have to agree with everything that he says. The doctrine of the infallibility of bishops and archbishops is not a doctrine of the Church of England. Perhaps I should put the corollary more positively: the doctrine of the fallibility of bishops and archbishops is a doctrine of the Church of England.

Mr. Frank Field: To what extent has the problem been exacerbated by the commissioners' borrowing and buying into the property market just before it collapsed?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman will know that, apart from dividends and rents, the commissioners have no source of income other than borrowing. The collapse of the property market has hit the Church Commissioners extremely hard, like many other investors, but the hon. Gentleman will recall that when the stock exchange market collapsed in 1987 the Church beneficiaries were entirely unaffected because there was much investment in property.

Set-aside

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, how much income will be derived by the commissioners from the common agricultural policy set-aside scheme in the current financial year.

Mr. Alison: The commissioners do not, as a matter of policy, farm any land themselves. Any set-aside payments will be made to their tenants.

Mr. Banks: At a time when pits are facing closure because they are said to be uneconomic, is it not wrong for any land that is owned by the Church to be attracting money when nothing is grown on it? The right hon. Gentleman knows far more about this than I do, but did not St. Paul say something about a man reaping what he sows? I can see exactly what is being reaped by some tenants—a lot of payments from the taxpayer. I cannot see what the tenants are sowing, other than discontent.

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, paradoxically, much contentment will accrue for a large number of urban dwellers who have strong ecological and environmental sympathies. They will find that, instead of cornfields, there will be many acres of beautiful flowing grass and lovely cornflowers growing. That will be widely appreciated by a large number of people.

Parsons' Freehold

Mr. John Marshall: To ask the right hon. Member for Selby, representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment he has made of the financial consequences of the abolition of the parsons' freehold.

Mr. Alison: The financial consequences of any changes to the existing system of freehold will depend on the nature of those changes. A General Synod steering group on clergy terms and conditions of service is examining freehold, among other matters, and the commissioners stand ready to help to assess any financial aspects as and when that group's work is more advanced.

Mr. Marshall: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the parsons' freehold and the absence of women priests act as a barrier to effective ministry?

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the parsons' freehold is not now an unconditional reality. Parsons who secured livings after 1975—which accounts for the overwhelming majority—are obliged to lose their freehold at the age of 70, so there is already a severe diminution in the absolute reality of the parsons' freehold. Whether or not it will be further reduced remains to be seen when the Synod reaches its conclusion.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

Immigration

Mr. Madden: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department in how many cases since June, to date, the Home Office has applied to adjourn immigration appeal and immigration appeal tribunals to enable applications from spouses with children with a right of abode in the United Kingdom to be reviewed.

The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr, John M. Taylor): In the period June to 14 October, the Home Office applied for adjournments in the type of case to which the hon. Member refers on 249 occasions before immigration adjudicators and on 11 occasions before the immigration appeal tribunal.

Mr. Madden: Although I accept that the reuniting of limited numbers of families separated under the primary purpose rule is welcome, does not the hon. Gentleman accept that that rule remains manifestly unfair and unjust? Will he urge Home Office Ministers to abolish it immediately, and warn them that it would be wholly unacceptable for them to replace the primary purpose rule by extending to four years the probationary period before which a spouse can apply for permanent settlement? That action would result in a storm of protest.

Mr. Taylor: The state of the law is entirely a matter for the Home Office, and it is not my place to give it guidance.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that entry to the United Kingdom must be controlled in a strict but fair manner? Every illegal immigrant who enters the United Kingdom takes up a job or receives benefits that we cannot afford. If I had a pound for every illegal immigrant in this country I would be a very rich man, and there would be plenty of jobs for everyone.

Mr. Taylor: As ever, my hon. Friend expresses himself more vividly and powerfully than I can, and I completely agree with certain of his remarks.

Mr. Boateng: Is not the Minister well aware that in this matter—as in housing, welfare and employment law—the law centres movement makes a valuable contribution to the cost-effective provision of legal services? The Minister knows that those services are under threat from local authority cuts throughout the country. Will his Department do something to prevent the disruption of legal services, or are we to see only more hand-wringing and head-scratching from this wretched Government?

Mr. Taylor: I do not think that I am in either the hand-wringing or the head-scratching business—but I am in the business of welcoming the hon. Gentleman to the Opposition Front Bench. He brings to his job considerable knowledge of his subject and, in particular, of law centres.
I know that the Lord Chancellor is personally sympathetic towards law centres. Part of the difficulty is that they are often so beset with local disputation that it is hard for an external agency to contribute constructively.

Welsh Language

Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what steps are being taken to promote the use of the Welsh language in civil and criminal courts in Wales.

Mr. John M. Taylor: Section 1 of the Welsh Language Act 1967 makes provision for the Welsh language to be spoken in any legal proceedings in Wales. My Department is committed to providing a responsive service to Welsh-speaking members of the community and is shortly to issue a policy statement that will set out the way in which that will be achieved.

Mr. Jones: The Parliamentary Secretary will be aware that, very shortly, a new Welsh language Bill will be before the House. Can he confirm——

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Madam Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Members who are standing please sit down?

Mr. Jones: Will the Bill contain a provision for hearings to be conducted through the medium of the Welsh language, either by defendants in criminal trials or by litigants in civil trials? If so, will sufficient resources be allocated to enable court staff to be trained in the use of Welsh in courts?

Mr. Taylor: The Welsh Language Act 1967 and the Welsh Courts Act 1942 provide Welsh speakers with safeguards. I do not think that I should comment on legislation that has not yet been introduced in the House, but the hon. Gentleman will at least concede this much to me: although I am an Englishman, I spent four years as the Government's Welsh Whip, and I always wish to be helpful in regard to Welsh affairs.

Juries

Mr. Cohen: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what information he keeps on the racial composition of juries.

Mr. John M. Taylor: My Department does not routinely keep records on the racial composition of juries; however, a limited research exercise was carried out at a number of Crown court centres in November 1990, when jurors' race was recorded from observation.

Mr. Cohen: Have not the Society of Black Lawyers and the Commission for Racial Equality spoken in favour of multiracial juries? According to the CRE,
An all-white jury may have no members capable of challenging prejudice.
Are not the lists of juries predominantly "white male"? [Interruption.] Why will the Government not make a simple change, enabling a multiracial or a mixed-sex jury to be convened if either the defence or the prosecution requests it?

Mr. Taylor: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I did not hear all of his question, but I shall do my best to reply. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. It really is very disruptive if Front Benchers cannot hear the questions that they are asked. I hope that the House will now settle down and listen to the Parliamentary Secretary's reply.

Mr. Taylor: During the informal observation of jury composition, the Society of Black Lawyers was consulted by the Lord Chancellor, and that was very much the intention. Meanwhile, the law on jury selection is a matter for the Home Office. Jury composition in practice is based on random selection, but the hon. Member may be pleased to know that the royal commission is examining the ethnic composition of juries as part of its remit.

Legal Aid

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department whether he will consider introducing improvements to the legal aid system; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The legal aid scheme is kept under constant review to ensure that it is operating as effeciently and effectively as possible.

Mr. Skinner: Is there not something seriously wrong with the allocation of legal aid when a miner receiving redundancy pay is not allowed such aid to enable him to sue British Coal for stealing £735 million from the pension fund, but, as I read the other day, the Maxwell brothers, who have been charged with stealing the Mirror pension funds, have been granted it? Where is the classless society represented in such double standards?

Mr. Taylor: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would ask that question.

Mr. Skinner: Go on, then. Answer it.

Mr. Taylor: I cannot comment on individual cases. The grant of legal aid in civil cases is dependent on whether there will be any benefits gained from litigation. In criminal cases, the test is the means of the applicant and the interests of justice. Either the Legal Aid Board or the court independently assesses these cases. If people are aggrieved by someone having been granted legal aid, they can object—and that includes the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Ivan Lawrence: As two of the problems concerning civil legal aid are, first, that it requires the Government to

sign a blank cheque and, secondly, that it excludes a large number of people from access to the courts, will my hon. Friend give serious consideration to encouraging private legal aid insurance, which would relieve both those problems?

Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his question. There is a role for legal expenses insurance. I think that it is to be pursued. My hon. and learned Friend may have a valuable role to play. We also have progress to make in respect of conditional fees for which the courts and legal services legislation expressly paved the way.

Mr. Steen: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to review the working of the legal aid fund.

Mr. John M. Taylor: The working of the legal aid fund is kept under constant review.

Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware that in each of my surgeries an increasing number of wives and young children are being—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. We are still in Question Time and the hon. Member for South Hams (Mr. Steen) has the Floor.

Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware that in each of my—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Mr. Steen—third time lucky.

Mr. Steen: Is the Minister aware that in each of my surgeries in the last year an increasing number of wives with young children have told me that they have been abandoned by their husbands, leaving the state to pick up the tab? Will the Minister find a way of ensuring that husbands who abandon their wives and young children do not receive legal aid and that wives who need legal aid obtain it so that they can pursue their husbands and get the money for their children and for themselves?

Mr. Taylor: Any marriage breakdown—it is always a tragedy—is especially a tragedy for the children. Whatever the rights and wrongs of legal assistance may be in the case of the parting parents, the Lord Chancellor's Department would wish there to be a legal aid system for matrimonial affairs that looks after the interests of the children, which are absolutely paramount.

Mr. Cryer: Is not the legal aid system designed to help people on low incomes? Will not a system of flat fees for legal aid inevitably work against very poor people, who will be deprived of proper legal representation, particularly in lengthy or complicated cases? Will the Minister reject entirely today in Parliament the concept of flat fees?

Mr. Taylor: I will not in any way forswear the concept of standard fees, which are a good idea. Standard fees tend to reward proficiency. The only consequence of legal aid as it is at the moment is that the bloke who takes longest gets paid most. That does not seem to be very satisfactory.

Divorce Law Reform

Mr. Wicks: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement concerning his plans for divorce law reform.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's expertise in social and family policy. The Lord Chancellor is considering reform of divorce law as part of the rolling programme of family law and business. To oversee this programme, the family law and administration working party was established in 1989. There are also the proposals of the Law Commission entitled, "The Grounds for Divorce."

Mr. Wicks: I note the House's considerable interest in this question. Does the Minister agree that, as every year the parents of 150,000 children under 16 divorce, the time for inaction by his Department has long since passed?

Mr. Taylor: I agree; but it is extremely important, in a subject about which people hold strong, sincere and deep views, that we get the question of reforming the divorce law right rather than simply achieve speed. It is inevitable that, during the discussions, there will be a great deal of deliberation about mediation, particularly if we are to depart from the traditional adversarial role in divorce matters and from the concept of fault and blame.

Courts (Public Confidence)

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to improve public confidence in the courts.

Mr. John M. Taylor: I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by the Lord Chancellor in another place and by the Home Secretary in the House on 14 March 1991, announcing the establishment of the Royal Commission on criminal justice.

Mr. Bennett: Will the Minister explain why the Government set up the May inquiry and then decided to abandon it when it appeared to be coming up with a report critical of senior judges? If we are to restore the reputation of courts, it is important that such an inquiry is completed and that criticism of judges is published.

Mr. Taylor: The vast majority of criminal cases are dealt with in a perfectly satisfactory way. There have, however, been very proper anxieties expressed about some cases that have led to convictions being quashed. That is why the royal commission was set up, and it is not for me to anticipate its findings.

Coal Industry

The President of the Board of Trade and Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Heseltine): With permission, Madam Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the coal industry.
Last week I agreed that British Coal should announce that it would cease production at 31 pits over the course of the next five months with the loss of up to 30,000 jobs. I very much regretted that British Coal had had to reach this decision, but I accepted its advice that these steps were necessary in order to bring supply closer into line with demand. I then announced myself the outline of a package of redundancy and special assistance measures, the further details of which I am now able to give the House.
Originally I intended to announce details of the new coal contracts with the electricity supply industry and the future employment prospects for British Coal to the House before the summer recess. This timetable was not achieved. I would have liked to have made the announcement to the House today, but the electricity industry has still not agreed contracts for coal after 1 April 1993. In the meantime, pressure on British Coal, fuelled by reported leaks, intensified and I therefore agreed to allow it to proceed. I regret this discourtesy to the House. I accept full responsibility for that decision, as I do for the consequent events.
Remorseless changes in circumstances have been reducing demand and employment in the coal industry for the past 80 years. The fastest rate of decline was in the 1960s, when 300,000 jobs were lost in a decade, including 186,000 under the Labour Governments of 1964–70. At present, British Coal is producing 88 million tonnes, with 65 million tonnes going to the electricity generators. It is most unlikely that British Coal will be able to sell more than 40 million tonnes to the generators as from next April. The economic case for a substantial reduction in capacity therefore remains compelling.
Nevertheless, the Government recognise the concern at the speed of the rundown and about the very great difficulties it would cause to the communities involved. We have therefore concluded that, for the time being, British Coal should be allowed to proceed with the closure of only 10 pits, which it has told me are currently loss making and have no prospect of viability in the foreseeable future. The pits which fall into this category are Vane Tempest, Grimethorpe, Houghton Main, Markham Main, Trentham, Parkside, Cotgrove, Silverhill, Betws and Taff Merthyr.
Nevertheless, it is clearly important that British Coal demonstrably meets its statutory duties to consult and notify and take account of the result of consultation. No closure will therefore take place until after the statutory consultation period has been completed.
In the case of all other closures and redundancies, I have asked British Coal to introduce a moratorium until early in the new year, except for those which may be agreed by the work force at the pits concerned. This will provide time for negotiations to continue, and, hopefully, to be concluded, on the new coal contracts. During this period there will be no compulsory redundancies, although voluntary redundancies will be allowed to proceed under the terms announced by British Coal last week.
During this moratorium, the Government and British Coal will set out the full case for the closures which British Coal planned and to which I agreed. The Government will also provide an opportunity for hon. Members to debate the issues. In addition, we will carry out widespread consultation with all those concerned over the next three months. We will then announce our conclusions following those consultations to Parliament in the new year. If, following this process, the Government and British Coal's judgment is confirmed, then British Coal will proceed with a phased programme of colliery closures aimed at reducing surplus capacity as soon as possible.
It is clear that many coalfield communities will continue to suffer significant job losses. I am now able to give the House more details about the package of measures to assist those communities.
In the short term, people will need immediate help to find jobs, to retrain, and to construct a new future for themselves. In the longer term, these areas will need help with infrastructure to attract new industries and business.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment has written to the Chairman of the Employment Select Committee with details of a package of measures worth approximately £75 million over two years. A copy of the letter has been placed in the Library.
The training and enterprise councils in the areas concerned will have a major part to play. They will want to ensure that all those affected are offered help from the relevant agencies, including British Coal Enterprise and Government Departments. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be taking similar action in Wales.
One of the best ways of attracting new industries and long-term investment is the creation of enterprise zones. The Government intend to introduce new enterprise zones in the areas where they would be most effective.
Last week I said that we would ask English Estates to advise on a programme of property and sites provision. On the basis of preliminary discussions with English Estates, the Government have decided to make available to the corporation, and in due course to the Urban Regeneration Agency, £75 million of additional money over the next three years. In addition, the corporation will in this year spend around £10 million in those areas.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is also making nearly £2 million available today to the Tyne and Wear development corporation. This will enable it to make an early start on the further extension of the Sunderland enterprise park and the new Viking industrial park in south Tyneside.
We have already announced that three areas—Doncaster, Barnsley and Mansfield—will get enhanced status when the new assisted area map is announced in the new year. More areas will be upgraded in the review. This will ensure that firms interested in investing there are eligible for grant assistance. We will continue to look at other areas.
These major initiatives will be underpinned by further smaller regeneration measures. I intend to extend the coverage of regional enterprise grants to all coal closure areas. This will help small businesses there with investment and innovation projects. I will strengthen inward investment efforts in these areas. I will see that additional resources are available to local development agencies.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is also acting immediately to alleviate


the effects of the closures. He is today setting up a coalfield areas fund. Up to £5 million will be made available for expenditure in this financial year and next. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is writing to the local authorities in the affected areas asking them urgently for proposals on how this money can best be spent to help those made redundant. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales will be making a separate announcement on resources in Wales.
I am aware that these closures will have a serious impact on coal industry suppliers and we are already discussing with them ways to assist diversification and the identification of new markets. These measures will all bring new money to the affected areas. We are talking about £165 million altogether. I know that this will make a major impact in transforming the economies of these areas.
These programmes will be carried out by a number of separate agencies, each with established expertise and a track record of achievement in their field, but it will be important to ensure that the programmes mesh properly together, leaving neither wasteful overlaps nor damaging gaps. For this reason, I have decided to appoint a distinguished national figure, who will be an adviser in my Department, to act as co-ordinator and facilitator at the national level. He will also assist my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. I am pleased to tell the House that Lord Walker has agreed to accept this important responsibility. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.

Mr. Heseltine: The decisions which I have announced today have been difficult. I understand—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Our fellow citizens outside the House are waiting to hear the statement. Let us hear the statement and let them hear it. They can then also hear what other hon. Members have to say subsequently.

Mr. Heseltine: The decisions which I have announced today have been difficult. I understand the anguish that will be caused for the coalfields concerned, but there is no economic alternative. The Government will now proceed to work for the long-term future of all those concerned.
I have arranged for copies of this statement to be available in the Vote Office.

Mr. Robin Cook: On Sunday the Secretary of State told the nation that there was no alternative to his closure programme. May I therefore congratulate him on the fact that by Monday he had discovered that there might at least be an alternative closure programme.
May I first ask the Secretary of State whether he thinks that the past seven days have enhanced or reduced the Government's credibility. If, as he claims, he agonised over this decision for months, how did he come up with a decision that could not survive six days of public debate? Can he explain how it was that he approved a timetable of closure which could not survive three days of challenge in the courts?
If the Secretary of State hopes that the House will welcome the announcement that British Coal will now observe the statutory notice period, can he explain why he ever approved a programme that involved breaking the

law? May I warn the Secretary of State that the closure by delayed action that he has announced today does not measure up to what the nation demands.
The people of Britain who protested over the weekend, from Chesterfield to Cheltenham, were not protesting about the timetable of the closure. Does not the Secretary of State realise that they were protesting about the closures? They wanted the closures stopped, not phased in. Nor did they want money spent on training miners for the dole. They wanted action to save those miners' jobs. They will not be reassured that they will get that action by the length of the Secretary of State's statement which dealt with the action that he will take after those miners have lost their jobs. Nor will they be reassured by a thin package which offers the entire mining coalfields only half the money that his Department has sunk into Canary Wharf.
Does the Secretary of State understand that his statement will be judged by whether it is a genuine attempt to save miners' jobs or a manoeuvre to save Ministers' jobs? In order that they may judge which it is, will the Secretary of State tell us whether his statement means that a single pit on last week's list has a secure future or whether a single miner has a secure job? By the end of the phasing in his statement, how many more jobs will have gone? How many more jobs will have gone in the power stations that burn coal? How many more jobs will have gone in the engineering factories which supply the cutting gear, the winding gear and the pit props? How many more jobs will have gone in the coal communities when miners do not bring home wages which their families can spend in the shops? How will it help Britain to get out of recession to push all those people into unemployment? How does that help to restore the confidence in the economy which Ministers keep telling us is the key to recovery?
The Secretary of State claimed again today that there is a clear economic case for closing the mines. On Sunday he rested that economic case on the argument that it would produce cheaper electricity. Can he name a single independent expert who believes him? Does he know that the chief executive of PowerGen, which makes the electricity, has said that the closures will increase generating costs? Does he know that every one of the new gas-fired power stations is expected to produce more expensive electricity than any of the coal-fired power stations that he will shut?
What was most remarkable about the right hon. Gentleman's statement was that it did not contain a single proposal for him to intervene to stop any of the closures. The only action that he proposed in his statement was to set out the case for closure. Does the Secretary of State remember that only a fortnight ago he promised that he would intervene before breakfast, before lunch and before dinner in the same way as the German Government intervene to help German companies? Well, this is his chance. Last week the German Government confirmed a package of DM3 billion to keep open pits that produce coal at double the price of that produced by the pits that he proposes to shut.
Now that the Secretary of State has given himself more time to intervene, will he intervene to save British jobs in the way that the German Government save German jobs? Will he intervene to secure Britain's coal reserves in the way that the German Government secure German coal reserves? Will he intervene to provide an energy strategy


which makes sense for Britain in the way that the German Government provide an energy strategy which puts Germany first?
There could be one, and only one, real benefit from the delays in the closures that the Secretary of State has announced: the delays give time for an independent review of the case for keeping the pits open—an independent review by a figure other than a former Tory Cabinet Minister. Will the Secretary of State agree to such a review? Will he let an independent review obtain the answers to our questions before any of the mines are shut, before any of the coal seams are flooded, before any of the coal reserves are lost and before he does any more damage to the economy by putting any more people on the dole?
If the Secretary of State will not agree to halt all the closures and set up an independent review, I serve notice that we shall table a motion that will give the House the opportunity to set up such a review and give a real future to Britain's coalfields.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) suggests that Lord Walker is in some way involved in the review that I announced. That is absolutely not the case. Lord Walker will devote his energies to securing the co-ordination of the measures that we have announced today. I say to the House, and to the Labour party, that in the past decade we have seen the economy of south Wales transformed under a Tory Government. We have seen it above all else because Lord Walker, when he was a member of this Government, brought his energies to bear on that transformation.
I tell the Labour party that I will take no lectures about the problems of closing down industries and running away from the consequences. I had to go to Corby in 1979 when the Labour party closed the steelworks with no attempt whatever to put jobs in their place. After a decade of diversification Corby has become a flourishing town. We have to find ways to bring that diversification into the coalfields. That is the only way to find lasting opportunities for the people who live there.
I note that the hon. Member for Livingston did not for one moment address himself to the fundamental dilemma that I face—the fact that British Coal has a contract until next April for 65 million tonnes of coal for the electricity generating industry. Next April, at best, British Coal can look forward to a contract for 40 million tonnes, and the reason for that is that those in charge of producing electricity can get their fuel more cheaply from alternative supplies. That is the dilemma. As they are charged with a responsibility to produce electricity cheaply, and as there is a regulator to ensure that they do so, it is unanswerable that the regulator will not allow them to buy generating fuel from other sources unless he is satisfied that they are the cheapest available sources.
The regulator is in place to deal with that, but it is important that the House should have the opportunity to examine the case that British Coal has had to face, pit by pit, which backs up its closure programme and that is what I have announced today. That is why, during the moratorium that I have announced, we shall produce a detailed calculation for the benefit of the House, and why there will be no further movement, other than in the pits that I have announced today, until after the House has had

a chance to debate the conclusions. That will give the House an important opportunity to understand the dilemma facing the electricity generating industry.
When the hon. Member for Livingston asks about the jobs that will be lost, I notice that he does not ask about the jobs that will be lost to the rest of British industry if we do not provide it with the cheapest electricity that we can generate. It is not simply a question of looking after the coal industry—we shall do the best that we can to find a viable coal industry. We have to help British industry to be competitive in world markets. That is my overall responsibility. I cannot do that by imposing on industry electricity costs higher than the market can offer.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Madam Speaker: Order. I must caution the House that this is a time for questions. It is not a time for hon. and right hon. Members, Front Benchers or Back Benchers, to make long statements. We have had the statement. I am looking for pertinent questions and direct answers.

Sir Michael Grylls: Does my right hon. Friend realise that his very reasonable statement will give great encouragement to the House and to the country at large, especially his remark that there will be enterprise zones to encourage inward investment and the setting up of new small businesses by those miners who lose their jobs, as that has been so successful and will be successful again——

Madam Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will set us off in the right way by asking a direct question.

Sir Michael Grylls: I have concluded, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I note his support for enterprise zones. Like most hon. Members, I have seen the value that they have brought to Shotton, Workington and Corby. I hope that all those Opposition Members who are jeering will not come to my office to ask for enterprise zones in the way that they always do.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Does the President of the Board of Trade recall that in the 1960s the historic error was made of depending on the assumption of cheap oil permanently? The Government's attitude is now based on the historic error of depending on cheap gas and cheap imported coal, which is an invitation to companies and countries that owe nothing to this country to hold our country to energy ransom in the future.
Does not the Secretary of State acknowledge that what is now happening with the crisis that he is inflicting on the coal mining areas is not to do with what he called "a remorseless change in circumstances", but is a direct consequence of the style and system of privatisation which the Government brought to this country? Does he accept that what he has said today does not begin to deal with the realities of mass unemployment that he will bring to coal mining areas? Most of all, nor does it begin to deal with coal as a precious national asset, which is how any patriotic Government must treat it.

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman repeats by implication the very point that his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) made about the cost of gas-fired generation and the fact that it is more


expensive. His hon. Friend quoted the managing director of PowerGen. Why is it that PowerGen is the only company now operating a gas-fired station?

Mr. Jim Lester: No words that I can express in this House could give vent to the shock waves that have gone through the community of Nottinghamshire following the announcement last week. That means that the review that my right hon. Friend has announced is critical. What status does that review have? It must be a profound and important review covering all aspects of the question because we need to see that the strategy for the future will ensure that coal-fired power stations and a deep-mine industry remain for 10, 15 or 20 years. From what the right hon. Member for Isiwyn (Mr. Kinnock) said, we know that we may need it then more than we do now.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely critical point. I assure him that the Government intend that the statement that we make and the information that we provide will be profound and comprehensive. We intend to do everything possible to enable deep-mined British coal to be world competitive. That is the objective because it is the only way in which we can provide for the rest of industry and our consumers the basic competitive fuel that helps them to win in the export markets.
Nobody is more aware than I am of the impact that my announcement and that of British Coal last week have had throughout the country. I have had to share the agony of that decision for many months, and because that information has been available to me, I have spent so much time examining the alternatives. But, in the end, I come back to this stark dilemma: there will be a reduction of 25 million tonnes in the likely market for British coal next April; and, on top of that, the reduction in the amount that British Coal will get for its coal is likely to be significant. It will therefore have a lower revenue from a lower tonnage. That is the dilemma, and unless we can find a way to deal with it we are faced with the unpalatable conclusions that I put to the House.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the President of the Board of Trade accept that a phased closure of pits will do nothing to stem the anger of people who are outraged at a Government who are tearing the industrial heart out of our economy? Does not the Government accept that that is the inevitable consequence of the privatisation of electricity and the creation of rigged markets for gas and nuclear power? What we need is not a phased closure but a full review of energy policy. In those circumstances, will Professor Littlechild's report be made in time to be taken into account before the pits close? Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that the only phase out that the country needs is the phase out of him and of the Government?

Mr. Heseltine: Professor Littlechild is, of course, fully aware that he has clear statutory responsibilities. He is now engaged on two reviews, and it is well within his ability to make available to us whatever information he thinks appropriate. The House can be sure that I shall take into account Professor Littlechild's views before I return to the House.
When the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) says that we cannot phase the closure of pits or the rundown of

the industry, he seems to forget that we have phased the rundown of manpower in the pits from 700,000 after the war to about 50,000 today.

Mr. Richard Alexander: Everyone is anxious for the outcome of the review. Will my right hon. Friend give some idea of its timescale and when we may know some of the decisions? When the review takes place, will it be borne in mind that if one strips away the subsidies, levies and sheer lack of competitiveness of some of the other fuels, British coal is the cheapest of all? Will British Coal and the people in the industry have the opportunity to make precisely that point?

Mr. Heseltine: The views of British Coal will be clearly set out in the report that I make to the House; that is absolutely fundamental. I intend to return to the House early in the new year.
As to the specific point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Alexander) about alternative supplies of fuel, it is perfectly true that the fossil fuel levy creates a subsidy for the nuclear industry. However, the subsidy is to deal with the decommissioning of old and unsafe plants. I defy the Labour party to suggest that I should not carry out my statutory duties to make those plants safe.

Ms. Joan Walley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: I take points of order at the end of statements.

Sir Harold Walker: Why is the right hon. Gentleman discriminating against specific pits such as Markham Main, in my constituency? Why is he applying the axe to them immediately? Last week people were handed redundancy notices with only a few days' notice. Why was that pit not included with the others? It has rich seams and its productivity has increased enormously. The death of that pit will be the death knell for the whole village.

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the right hon. Member knows that 250 of the Markham Main employees have already applied for the new redundancy terms that I announced last week. I repeat that the 10 pits that I have listed this afternoon are pits that the chairman of British Coal has assured me are not making a profit today; and there is no foreseeable way in which they will do so.

Mr. Winston Churchill: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement as far as it goes, but I fear that it does not go far enough. The miners of this country are not asking for charity; they are asking for a level playing field for their product. Unless my right hon. Friend can assure the House that what he is offering is a thoroughgoing review of Britain's long-term strategic energy requirements that will address the imbalances created by the uneven playing field and, pending that, there will be a moratorium on at least 90 per cent. of the closures, I shall certainly find it difficult to support his position in the Division Lobbies.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend, who I know has taken a great interest in these matters, has heard me list 10 pits which are not making a profit and which British Coal says have no prospect of making a profit. Those are the ones that we have authorised British Coal to proceed with.
In respect of the other pits, we have announced a moratorium. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we have gone as far as we reasonably should with all our responsibilities in that context. There can be no case for my telling British Coal to keep uneconomic pits going. We are talking about uneconomic pits at today's price of about £1.85 per gigajoule; that price will drop, we read in the newspapers, to something in the order of £1.50 per gigajoule. That clearly shows that, if these pits are not profitable at today's higher prices, there is no way they will be profitable at tomorrow's lower prices.
We shall have plenty of chances to set this out in the debate on Wednesday and in my subsequent comments before the House is invited to vote early next year. It is certainly important to deal with my hon. Friend's concerns with the wider issues, and I will do so.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that he cuts a pathetic figure here today—both he and Major Wimp beside him? Is it not high time, instead of handing out quango jobs to Lord Walker, who lined his pockets with Maxwell money, that the Government saved the jobs of the 31,000 miners for whom the right hon. Gentleman has announced this moratorium? It is not a stay of execution they want; they want their jobs to remain.
There has been a 155 per cent. increase in productivity. There has been no increase in the price of industrial coal for six years. We can compete with the rest of Europe. Why should German coal be imported to Britain at £110 a tonne when we can produce it, after devaluation, at £37 a tonne? In the name of God, go, and take the Prime Minister and the rest of the rag, tag and bobtails with you!

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will know that the Bolsover pit is one of those that we have covered by the moratorium. I should have thought that he would concentrate his endeavours on pleading a rational case for his constituency and his pit rather than on debasing the currency of the House of Commons, as is his habit. He would help the House more if he recognised that no German coal is imported to this country for the purposes of electricity generation. The hon. Gentleman would also help the debate if he realised that imported coal comes not from Germany but principally from America, Australia and Colombia, mainly because it is opencast coal which is a great deal cheaper to mine from the surface than to extract from Britain's deep coal mines.

Mr. Michael Alison: Can my right hon. Friend confirm as a result of his original statement that the seven mines in the Selby group in my constituency will continue to employ 4,000 deep pit miners; that they will be producing 12 million tonnes of coal a year for power generation; that that represents more than a quarter of likely coal sales, from just seven pits; and that this in turn represents the vast investment which my right hon. Friend and his predecessors have made in productive, constructive coal mining, far outstripping investment in closures? Will he also confirm that, if any additional mines are saved as a result of his statement today, that will only enhance the fact that overwhelmingly the largest proportion of fuel input to power generation will come from British Coal and from pits in my constituency?

Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend is right. After the contraction of the industry that we are contemplating, British Coal will still be the largest contributor to electricity generation in this country. I confirm that the Selby group is a core part of the future of the British coal industry. We have invested £1.3 billion in that group of pits, which has played its part in securing the improved productivity upon which the long-term viability and, therefore, the future of the industry depend.

Mr. Joseph Ashton: Is the Minister aware that the Prime Minister said at the Tory party conference at Blackpool that he would put Britain and the British people first in all his policies? Is Nottinghamshire still part of Britain and, if so, why is Germany, which has 4 per cent. unemployment, subsidising its coal mines by £1 billion per year while Britain, with 10 or 11 per cent. unemployment, is eliminating almost 31,000 jobs? Is he also aware that, of the 5,000 people in Nottinghamshire who have recently been through training schemes, only 257–5 per cent.—have found jobs? What does he think that will do to the county?

Mr. Heseltine: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that 86 per cent. of the miners who go through British Coal Enterprise advisory services find jobs. I am sure that he also realises that the Germans are contracting their industry because of the pressures of reduced competitiveness of the fuel.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about subsidies for the German industry. I am sure that he will bear in mind that the Government have put £18 billion into British Coal during this decade. Less than one tenth of that amount was put in in total by Labour Governments in earlier years.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Is my right hon. Friend aware that most of the pits in my constituency were closed when the local Member of Parliament, George Brown, was a member of the Labour Government and that no help whatever was available at that time?
I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. Given enough time, mining communities do adjust and can make a successful future. There is life after coal, and if my right hon. Friend comes to south Derbyshire we shall be delighted to show him a successful community for which that is true.

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I know, in many parts of the country the coal industry contracted significantly under Labour Governments and major diversification has taken place. Nowhere is that more the case than in south Wales, as Labour Members understand all too clearly. When Labour was in power, it ran down the coal industry without let or hindrance, and it ill becomes the Opposition now to pretend that they had a magic solution when patently they had not.

Mr. Eric Clarke: I am an ex-miner with 26 years' underground experience. This is a poor and bitter day for the people of Britain because the Minister's statement goes no way towards sustaining confidence in Britain's coalfields. The closure programme includes the sale of Frances colliery in Fife. I met the Minister for Energy and asked him not to give away or sell prematurely the assets of British Coal because the future of the Scottish coalfield rests on the development of a colliery that is


presently mothballed and up for sale. If it is prematurely sold and not girdled about and proper investment is not made in it, it will disappear for ever.
In terms of the future, that colliery is important, and in saying that I am not taking away from the arguments of my hon. Friends. The Minister is slashing the pits, saying that they are uneconomic. It is the old, old story: anyone can make anything uneconomic if he wants to. I hope that the Minister will reverse the decision because many other assets are being stripped. I know that some of my ex-colleagues—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] All right, but this is important. The people who are running British Coal are feathering their nests for whatever the future brings, whether it is privatisation or not. All that I am saying is that——

Madam Speaker: Order. I pleaded with the House for questions. I know that the hon. Member will accept that.

Mr. Clarke: I hope that there is not a scorched earth policy. [Interruption.] That is hard to say when one has had a drink, but it is no laughing matter for the Scottish coal mining community if that is the policy of British Coal and the Government.

Mr. Heseltine: I am aware of the constructive approach that the hon. Gentleman has taken and the dedication that he has shown in the interests of the industry. He obviously has an experience of the industry that I could not begin to equal. Because I know that the hon. Gentleman is wholly sincere in his approach, I want to respond in kind. I am prepared to look at the points he has made, but I want to share with hon. Members the danger that I face. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will see the difficulty I have in trying to respond seriously to his point.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Stop being so unctuous and tell the truth.

Mr. Heseltine: Well, stop being so plain bloody stupid. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Sometimes my patience is tried so far that I almost use that sort of language.

Mr. Heseltine: I was speaking about the danger that is presented. There is bound to be a significant number of miners who face the loss of their jobs and see the risk to the community, arid, understandably, they will instinctively wish to use their redundancy money to buy the pit. I want to be cautious before I encourage mining communities to invest in pits that, in our best judgment and in the best judgment of British Coal, have no viable future.
I do not say that because I want to choke off all interest or potential—that is the last thing I want to do. If miners come armed with expert advice and financial resources, and if, as I hope, they propose to put in only a limited amount of their redundancy money, I can give the House this assurance: I will personally ensure that their case is seriously considered.
Let me go further, because in some ways this is at the heart of one of the dilemmas that we face. The market that British Coal sees for its product next year will decline from 65 million tonnes to 40 million tonnes. If one or other of the pits scheduled for closure is moved into the private sector by a group of miners and supporters, that will potentially take part of that 40 million tonne market, with the consequent danger that other British Coal pits may be at risk. Therefore, that must be taken into account as well.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am responding as genuinely as I can to what I know to be his serious interest.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement as it suggests that he, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and other Cabinet colleagues have been listening carefully to what Conservative Back-Bench Members have been saying and to the views expressed by many people throughout the country since last Tuesday. Perhaps we have someone who is listening up there. I do not think, however, that the response goes far enough. I ask my right hon. Friend to put all mines into the review and to question British Coal, because at this stage we do not necessarily have to accept what it says. I do not think that the slight delay that would occur over the next few months would be detrimental eventually in terms of the cost of the outcome.
Will my right hon. Friend please put these considerations into the review? Let us have a complete review of the coal industry and of our long-term energy requirements.

Mr. Heseltine: I know exactly how much my hon. Friend is concerned about these matters as I have had the chance to talk to her personally about them. I cannot, however, go as far as she asks. These are pits that are not economic even at the high level of payment that British Coal now receives for its product, and British Coal will be receiving significantly less next year in what is already likely to be a much reduced market. It would be imposing costs in public expenditure terms for which there is no justification.
The House will understand—I do not wish to widen the discussion—that all delay has a cost consequence. If we produce 25 million tonnes of coal next year for which there is no market, that will cost an additional £1 billion or more in a year. That will have to be financed in public expenditure. It will be matched against a range of other investment or revenue consequences—hospitals, schools and roads, or whatever it may be. That is the choice that the House is asking us to make. I cannot responsibly make it in respect of the 10 pits today.

Mr. Tony Benn: Is the Secretary of State aware that his economic arguments are wholly unconvincing? If they were applied to agriculture, half the farms in Britain would be threatened with closure. They were not applied when the gamblers played the currency markets three or four weeks ago. It is a political act, long prepared by the Government, to rig the market, to close the pits and to punish the National Union of Mineworkers.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware also that it was the brutality towards those who were told that they would lose their jobs in 48 hours that produced the public response? Men who have devoted their lives to the industry wake up one day and find that the Secretary of State has ended their industrial life. It is the brutality of it that has stirred the public. We want to see all the closures reversed and a return to a planned energy policy to ensure that we use the nation's reserves wisely.

Mr. Heseltine: The right hon. Gentleman says all these things now, but as a member of a Labour Government it seemed not to occur to him that it was necessary to protect all these jobs. What exactly was he doing when he helped


to provide finance for the interconnector with France so that French electricity could cross the channel to compete with ours?

Sir Rhodes Boyson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in my constituency, where there are no mines and no farms either, there is great concern about the way that the miners were treated last week? Will he accept from me, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock), that all the pits should be subject to the moratorium? Should not there be an independent energy survey that embraces what is happening in the nuclear industry and the question of how long gas supplies will last? Coal is a strategic industrial element that is vital to this country's future.

Mr. Heseltine: My right hon. Friend repeats the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock). I cannot give an assurance that I will change the decision that I announced today in respect of those 10 mines. My right hon. Friend must realise the implications of that process. If he wants us to finance the continuation of those pits, other sacrifices will have to be made in public expenditure terms. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) is an enthusiast for many aspects of public expenditure programmes. One cannot have them all, and that suggestion does not seem justified. There is no long-term viability for those pits, even at the existing level of revenue—which is higher than that which they will be able to achieve next April. There comes a point in Government when one must make difficult decisions.

Mr. Richard Caborn: Will the President of the Board of Trade answer a question that many in this country want to ask him: where is the long-term strategy for an energy policy? The answers given this afternoon do not meet the serious charge that has been laid against the Government. If there is only to be justification for British Coal's decision, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that his own Department stops licensing the 40 or more gas-fired power stations that are likely to come on stream? Many mining communities will believe that, with his statement this afternoon, we have moved from strangulation to suffocation.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. I have to deal with legal constraints in respect of the planning applications that are before me, but I am not unsympathetic to that important question—which I must address during the moratorium and the further submission of views. I cannot, however, unbuild the gas-fired stations which already exist or which are being constructed, and which account for a significant amount of the competition.
The hon. Gentleman asks about our strategy for an energy policy. It is impossible to ignore the existence of United Kingdom-owned North sea gas. That is the source of the remarkable opportunity to obtain lower cost electricity. At present consumption levels, North sea gas supplies will last for another 50 years.

Mr. William Cash: Does my right hon. Friend accept that his announcement today will do nothing to assuage the fears of those at Trentham colliery, many of whom live in my constituency? If my right hon.

Friend casts his mind back to the 1974 miners' strike, he will recall that those same miners who crossed the picket lines and defied Arthur Scargill are now being let down by his decision. Will my right hon. Friend please explain, in relation to our competitiveness within the so-called level playing field in Europe, why the decision was recently taken to allow a £3.3 billion agreement between the power generators and subsidised coal producers in Germany to get away scot free?

Mr. Heseltine: It is clear that the Germans are subsidising their industry, but they too are running down their coal industry. Our concern must be not the level of subsidies in Germany but whether we can provide for British industry and British consumers electricity cheaper by competition from gas-fired production or whatever alternative source we use.
The UDM's contribution was quite the most remarkable memory that I have of the industrial relations situation in the early 1980s. I happened to be in the Cabinet at that time, and I know exactly what UDM members did. That, among other things, made me determined to achieve the scale of redundancy compensation that I have provided and announced, which makes available up to £37,000 per miner—an average of £23,000 per miner—at a time when, owing to world recessionary pressures, people are losing their jobs in the manufacturing and service industries without receiving redundancy pay on anything like the scale of the compensation that I have announced.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) asked me whether I could exempt Trentham. I must tell him—and it gives me no pleasure to do so—that Trentham is one of the biggest loss makers with which British Coal is faced.

Mr. John Cummings: Who does the right hon. Gentleman think he is kidding with such a disgraceful statement? Certainly not the miners at Vane Tempest colliery, who have been denied the investment that could have turned the colliery around; certainly not the people of Seaham, a town that is still reeling from the closure last year of Dawdon and Murton collieries, with the loss of some 3,000 jobs. The people of Seaham are experiencing the highest number of job losses in the country, and the lowest number of job vacancies in the United Kingdom.
My people want to hear the President of the Board of Trade talk of clearing the lines for our entry into the European market—a market that is bringing in 150 million tonnes of coal from outside the Community. We want to hear the right hon. Gentleman speak of the incestuous relationship between supply companies in the north-east and gas-fired power stations—an arrangement into which we have recently entered. We need answers to these questions, and we certainly need to appease the frustration and anger of the hundreds of miners who are being thrown out of work in Seaham.

Mr. Heseltine: I have tried to recognise the anguish that the hon. Gentleman described. As he knows, Easington is not one of the 10 collieries that I have listed today. He must also know, however, that over the past decade or so £18 billion of investment—I have already mentioned that figure—has gone into British Coal. It is entirely unacceptable for anyone to suggest that the Government have not done all that it reasonably could to make the industry competitive and to give it a chance.
It is true that Europe imports substantial amounts of coal, but it is imported from the world competitive market, at much more competitive prices than British Coal can achieve.

Dr. Keith Hampson: Has my right hon. Friend stressed enough the significance of the 40 million-tonne electricity supply contracts? Is it not the case that, roughly speaking, for every million tonnes by which the supply falls below that figure, an additional 1,000 miners will be put on the dole? The level of public indignation will then rise out of control.
Is it not a disgrace that the contracts have dragged on for so long? While trying to keep demand at that level, will my right hon. Friend please review the policy for licensing gas stations—a policy that has already, up to April, passed licences for 14 such stations?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has raised what is, for me, one of the most distressing aspects of the issue. Despite the endeavours of all the British Coal negotiating teams, we have not yet seen a contract between British Coal and the generators, or between the generators and the regional distribution companies.
When I addressed the annual conference of the UDM, I made it as clear as I could that I considered it important for both the generators and the regional electricity companies to realise that this was not just an economic matter. There are communities out there with legitimate anxieties, and there is an imperative need for those contracts to be concluded. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson) is broadly right: if contracts for approximately 40 million tonnes are not entered into next year, every million tonnes below that figure will have an impact on employment in the coal mining industry.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that, as yet, he has singularly failed to answer the many questions that he has been asked about the Government's future strategy on energy policy? Is he really suggesting, through this statement, that in a consultation period of three months an energy strategy can be brought forward that has not been brought forward over a three-term period by this Government?
Would it not be much better to place a complete moratorium on this programme and to reconvene the Select Committee on Energy, which had built up considerable expertise in this sphere? It would enable us to look at an energy policy that would be to the benefit of industry, consumers and employers alike and would ensure that at least we went forward into the 21st century knowing where we were going. In that context, we should seriously look at the subsidy that has been given to the nuclear industry, some of which, of course, was instituted by the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn).

Mr. Heseltine: I do not agree that we should question the principle of the subsidy that was given to the nuclear industry because, as I have already said, that is being used to decommission capital facilities; it is being used to decommission plant. Otherwise, I should be failing in my responsibilities. I will not do that.
The hon. Lady asks me about the strategy. We have a very clear energy strategy—to provide for British companies and British consumers a diversity of energy supply at a competitive range of costs. That is what we are

determined to achieve. In doing that we have to be sure that there is a long-term prospect of continuation of those resources. We are satisfied about all those things within the strategy.

Mr. Patrick Cormack: In order to inspire proper confidence in the moratorium, will my right hon. Friend do two things? First, will he ensure that there is an independent assessment of the energy resources and requirements of this country? Secondly, will he summon the heads of the power industry and ask them whether they have really been putting Britain's long-term interests first?

Mr. Heseltine: They are all operating under statute to ensure that they clearly understand what their duties are. We laid down those duties. We laid down the regulatory regimes within which Offer must supervise their activities. It is quite clear that they have duties and that there is a regulator.
My hon. Friend raises the interesting question of an independent assessment. Of course, I shall give the clearest view I can as to what the arguments are, but what must have emerged today and on many other occasions is that this is not a case where we will persuade people that there is an independent calculation that leads remorselessly to one conclusion. One is dealing with great pressure groups, great vested interests, great alternative sources of energy, and everybody argues his case. However many times we argue it and whatever figures we provide, we will never get agreement between the conflicting interests involved. That is why in government we have to make decisions about priorities. I shall try to set out for colleagues why we have taken the decisions that we have, but I do not pretend that we shall satisfy all those who represent every pressure group because I know that we shall not.

Mr. Paddy Tipping: Will the President of the Board of Trade reassure the House and give some confidence to mining communities about the review that is to take place? It appears to have no independence at all. The President of the Board of Trade has told us several times this afternoon that the final outcome will be a contract between British Coal and the generators of 40 million tonnes. If that is the case, we shall be back to where we are today.
This review, this process, is a fraud. We want assurances that the nuclear levy is to be looked at. We also want assurances that the length of the contract between the generators and gas generation will be looked at. The coal industry wants a level playing field, a level market. The Government have provided no opportunity for that to happen. The inquiry gives no chance for an independent assessment.

Mr. Heseltine: My task in announcing the moratorium and promising to come back to the House is to provide for the House the evidence on which the 40 million tonnes calculation is based and, consequentially, the evidence to show why there is no greater market for the pits that face closure. That is the task that my review must undertake, and I have assured the House as clearly as I can that that evidence will be forthcoming. I shall not be able—I should not seek to interfere in the matter—to stop hon. Members from arguing that there is an alternative market for British Coal, but they must show where it is because British Coal


cannot find it, and it is because no one else is prepared to show me where it has a competitive opportunity that I have had to make these unpalatable decisions.

Mr. Robert Adley: Is not it a fact that my right hon. Friend is left with responsibility for British Coal without having any influence whatsoever over the purchasing habits of its main customers? Is not this one of the weaknesses of the manner of electricity privatisation? Is he aware that some of us tried to impress that on Lord Parkinson but got nowhere? Will my right hon. Friend consider taking powers positively to influence the purchasing policies of the generators, if that is necessary, in order to sustain a medium-term policy rather than having the terrible situation that we have had to go through in the past few days?

Mr. Heseltine: In considering all the options, I considered that one because it was an obvious example of how one could have found alternative markets for British Coal. However, the first question that followed that consideration was, am I prepared to ask the House for powers to insist that electricity generation is more expensive than it would be otherwise? It is because I believe that my first responsibility is to ensure that British industry and consumers get the most competitive energy that I am not prepared to ask the House to reverse the decision that it took in the past half decade.

Mr. George Stevenson: Is the President of the Board of Trade aware that his statement is another example of the sickening betrayal that the public have recognised in the past week? Does he realise that the public require a complete stop on pit closures so that the complex issues to which he referred can be considered in depth? Is he aware that, seven months ago, the Trentham complex, which is in my constituency, was congratulated by British Coal on producing the quickest 2.3 million tonnes in Europe? In July, British Coal congratulated Trentham miners and said that they had a long-term future. What has changed since then?
Will the right hon. Gentleman impose a complete moratorium so that the matter can be considered in detail, the country can be advised and the House can look at the results?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Member is asking the Government to acknowledge something that his Governments were never prepared to acknowledge—the remorseless pressure of the market decline for coal. The Labour party in power was never able to find markets for coal and therefore ran down the coal industry year after year. I am faced with exactly the same process, and I am determined, in the course of the moratorium that I have announced today, to put before the House the nature of the costs and competition that British Coal faces. In that context, we shall see how unavoidable were the decisions that I had to take and authorise British Coal to take.

Sir Teddy Taylor: In view of the Government's fantastic achievements on the single European market, will the President of the Board of Trade explain to the public and to hon. Members why on earth it is not possible to sell coal to Europe? The Germans

produce and sell coal at £86 a tonne and other European countries produce and sell it at £112, £79 and £76 a tonne, which is more than double the British price.
If the single European market means anything, why is there no demand for British coal in Europe? If the Secretary of State says that there is nothing funny in that, will he explain why PowerGen's chief executive has said that his coal-fired plant is able to generate far more cheaply than the independent gas-powered stations? He would love to put a contract to buy coal but, sadly, he cannot do so because he cannot get contracts with the regional electricity companies, which are the shareholders in the independent gas plants.

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has asked a number of questions. I find questions about PowerGen and National Power so contradictory because half the projects for gas-fired electricity are being developed, or have been developed, by National Power and PowerGen. It is inexplicable that the companies that are saying that they can produce coal-fired electricity more cheaply are among the biggest developers of gas-fired electricity. They cannot have it both ways. They say that because they are trying to sell their coal-fired electricity to the regional electricity companies, in competition with the gas-fired plants of the RECs. My hon. Friend is in the middle of the crossfire of a competitive situation between two groups of companies. He should take their sales pitch with the cynicism that he views other matters on which he is expert.
Let me come to my hon. Friend's views on Europe. I am the first to agree with him: there are things within the European Community that I would like to see made more competitive. One example of an area in which the Government are pressing extremely hard, which has significant implications for British coal, is in gaining access for British electricity generators to the European Community's grids.

Sir Teddy Taylor: What is stopping you?

Mr. Heseltine: We are negotiating; it is on the agenda of the British presidency. We are pressing our European partners to open up that opportunity. That is a much more constructive and likely way to make progress than by suggesting that we can produce deep-mined British coal and transport it across the channel and Europe to compete with the world price coal that the Europeans can purchase. We cannot compete on that basis. We might be able to do so if we were to get access to the European electricity grid.

Mr. Alan Meale: Will the President of the Board of Trade explain something simple to the House? He said that he cannot intervene, despite what he said a few weeks ago at his own party conference. If the Government own 40 per cent. of the shares of the electricity companies and 100 per cent. of the coal industry, why on earth cannot they intervene? Nobody can understand the illogicality of that.

Mr. Heseltine: Because the electric industry operates within regimes that were passed and approved by the House, it is subject to regulation. The hon. Member reveals the stark distinction between what he and I mean by intervention. He means intervention in order to stuff costs down British industry which it can avoid in alternative ways.

Mrs. Angela Browning: Will my right hon. Friend pay careful attention to the fifth report of the Select Committee on Energy, and look at the medium-term projections for energy costs? I sympathise with his view that there are many conflicting statistics and figures, but every business in this country has to project supply and demand and estimate costs in the medium term, so that it should not be beyond the wit of the House to take an objective look at that, which will be vital in the forthcoming five to 10-year period for businesses, domestic consumers and, not least, our balance of payments.

Mr. Heseltine: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. I assure her that I will deal with that matter in my report to the House.

Mrs. Llin Golding: Will the President of the Board of Trade explain to the House how a pit such as Silverdale in my constituency, which was recently described as the jewel in the crown of British Coal, can be put on the list for closure? What criterion is British Coal using for the list? Surely, if a pit such as Silverdale is due for closure, there is no hope for any of the others.

Mr. Heseltine: I understand how the hon. Lady feels. I have tried this afternoon to answer that question on several occasions. The explanation is very simple and stark. British Coal does not see a demand for its product, and British Coal does not see the price levels that it is currently getting beyond April of next year. There is a 25 million tonnes projected reduction in demand for its product. It has had, therefore, to reach management decisions as to which pits it should recommend for closure and which ones it should continue to exploit. It is that uncomfortable decision to which we will come back when I make my report to the House.

Mr. Robert Hicks: In view of the public expenditure implications of this unfortunate sequence of events, will my right hon. Friend confirm that all the measures that he has announced hitherto will be funded out of new money that he has obtained from the Chancellor and not out of existing budgets and thus give the House, and in particular hon. Members who represent other parts of the United Kingdom that have genuine economic and social problems, an assurance that our regions will not be penalised as a consequence of the sequence of events?

Mr. Heseltine: I can help my hon. Friend. I made it clear in my statement where the money was coming from, whether it was within existing public expenditure programmes or whether it was new money. I can assure him that, in terms of the two big announcements that I made today, they are new money. Of course, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. He makes the point that the coalfields have real hardship and problems, but so have other parts of the country. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I will certainly not ignore that.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: The President of the Board of Trade's announcement will not save one of the 31,000 job losses that were announced last week. There will not be a review. There will be co-ordination by Lord Walker, whose history in running down the mining

industry during his tenure in the Department of Energy is well known, and there will be no confidence in the mining communities about his appointment.
May we have a little bit of Thatcherism? May we argue on a level playing field so that coal can stand its ground against nuclear and gas energy? As was disclosed by the hon. Member for Leeds, North-West (Dr. Hampson), who was one of the right hon. Gentleman's campaign managers against Lady Thatcher, if the power generating boards do not agree to the 40 million tonnes, with every 1 million less the 19,000 jobs that are left in the industry will be threatened. We are not at the end of a closure programme with the loss of 31,000 jobs; we are at the beginning.

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman is fully aware that we are not in any way at the beginning. The beginning started between the first and second world wars. It has continued remorselessly ever since, and it has been continued under all parties regardless of their political persuasion. Let me repeat, because the hon. Gentleman might not have heard what I said, that Lord Walker is nothing to do with the review. Lord Walker will co-ordinate the measures that are to help people living in coalfield areas.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, and particularly the assistance that he offers to coal industry suppliers to pursue diversification and new markets. What steps will he take to ensure that suppliers play on even playing fields? What steps will be taken to ensure that British Coal rescinds the stop that it put on maintenance contracts last weekend?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend touches on a very important aspect of this matter, and that is coal industry suppliers. They, of course, have been aware of the likely contraction of the number of mines and, in certain cases, have already made their own plans to diversify their activities, particularly overseas. We have leading technology, particularly long-wall technology, in our suppliers, and we will do all that we can to give them every proper help. Obviously each company is different and each market is different, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will have urgent and intensive dialogue with them to see what we can do.

Mr. John Evans: Is the Secretary of State aware that his announcement today that Parkside colliery, in my constituency, the last colliery in Lancashire, should close without further review is incredible? Is he aware also that Parkside has more than 40 million tonnes of coal reserves, that the vast majority of its coal goes direct to Fiddler's Ferry power station, only eight miles away, by direct train, and that British Coal recently installed a brand new machine on a new face at a cost of £6 million? Is the Secretary of State aware that on Friday not one single job for manual labourers was available at St. Helens jobcentre and that there is no chance whatsoever of any of the 800 miners who will lose their jobs in Parkside getting a job anywhere on Merseyside?

Mr. Heseltine: I know and the hon. Gentleman knows of the remarkable changes that have been taking place over the past decade in St. Helens. I salute the local community, the local authorities and Pilkingtons, who have played such a remarkable role in bringing about that transformation. The figures that British Coal has shown


me for that particular colliery indicate that it is not able to make a profit even in today's circumstances. That is the real world that I have to confront.
I understand what the hon. Gentleman says about the investment that has taken place. There has been massive investment—that is very much the point that I am making—but it has not enabled the collieries that I am dealing with today to make a surplus. In those circumstances, if they cannot do it today at today's prices, they certainly cannot do it at tomorrow's likely prices.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: My right hon. Friend was entirely right to reject British Coal's judgment that a Conservative Government could ever have connived in behaviour which threw men out of work at only 48 hours' notice. In the context of the review that my right hon. Friend has announced today, will it be possible to consider that, although gas may be cheaper now, by any judgment, gas stocks clearly will be less than coal stocks? Is not the relative position of the availability of sources something which the review might take into account?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend makes an important point about resources and reserves, but the history of the North sea has been a continuing one of extending the calculations for the amount of reserves that are available. The present calculations indicate that on the present levels of consumption we have about 50 years' worth of reserves, and that is before taking into account any further reserves which may be discovered. On any foreseeable calculation of the likely availability of fuel, there is a continuing availability of North sea gas as far into the future as any practical judgments can predict.

Mr. Derek Enright: The President of the Board of Trade will be aware that the destruction of Grimethorpe will put out of work virtually the entire male population of Havercroft, Hiendley and Ryhill, but he is clearly not aware that Grimethorpe made a profit over the past three years and that it is not dependent upon electricity. It depends upon selling to local industry, in particular to Coalite. Coalite had absolutely no notice of the closure of Grimethorpe and it has been left in considerable difficulties as a result, and that is clearly very wrong.
Will the right hon. Gentleman clear up another matter? People keep talking about a review. I should have been very happy if a review had been announced, but, as I understand the right hon. Gentleman's statement, no review was announced.

Mr. Heseltine: I looked particularly at the problems of Grimethorpe colliery. However, as the hon. Gentleman will know better than I, it shares facilities with Houghton Main, which loses money. If we aggregate the two—[Interruption.]—if we close Houghton Main, then Grimethorpe is a loss-making colliery. If we keep them both open, they do not make a profit. We are faced with the fact that, on any calculation of whether that pair of collieries is ever likely to compete in tomorrow's market at tomorrow's prices, the answer must be that British Coal has made recommendations to me which I have accepted.
The hon. Gentleman asked a question which I have been asked on many occasions. I have explained that there will be a moratorium. I have
announced 10 pits today

which I am persuaded by British Coal do not and cannot make a profit in today's world, let alone tomorrow's. I have announced a moratorium for the other pits and said that I will come back to the House with a full explanation of the costs and calculations which the House will have the chance to debate before we take any further decisions.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Will my right hon. Friend accept that there is an understanding in Nottinghamshire of the very real pressures that the coal industry faces? However, there is no understanding of the way in which the announcement was made last week or of the peremptory way in which the UDM was treated in that announcement. Nevertheless, I greatly welcome my right Friend's statement today as a chance to think again and to ensure that we get it right this time.

Mr. Heseltine: I know how strongly people in Nottinghamshire felt and I have tried to indicate my own particular responsibilities in this matter. I do not in any way seek to absolve myself from those responsibilities. However, I must say that I have had discussions with the UDM leadership. Indeed, when the House has finished questioning me, I hope to see the UDM executive this afternoon to discuss these matters further. I attended the UDM conference and I have said that the Government will make available through British Coal financial help if the UDM wishes to proceed with, as I understand it, its present intention to become part-owners of the residual coal board.

Mr. Bill Etherington: I must tell the President of the Board of Trade how disappointed I was with his statement. Wearmouth colliery is in my constituency. It was to be mothballed, but I now understand that, due to the moratorium, it has a new lease of life. We will not be kidded about this. We have a stay of execution. The people in Sunderland believe that the Government need to be mothballed, not Wearmouth colliery.
I have a simple question for the President of the Board of Trade, but I am having great difficulty in coming to terms with it. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain how we can improve the trading conditions of this nation when he has already stated today that he is looking for cheap, secure energy supplies, but is using the two most expensive sources—nuclear and gas? We do not want a revised timetable; we want a new service.

Mr. Heseltine: I understand how strongly the hon. Gentleman feels, but it simply does not help to say that gas and nuclear are more expensive. If they were more expensive, there is no coherent answer to the question why anyone buys electricity from that source. I know that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the fact that we have made an additional £2 million available to the Tyne and Wear development corporation.

Mr. Hugh Dykes: As most of this nightmare flows back to the mistakes made in the original electricity privatisation proposals which made electricity more expensive rather than less expensive, does not the President of the Board of Trade agree that he must have a much more fundamental look at the matter? Merely to suggest that there will be a postponement of closures is not enough. I am sorry to say that if he does not undertake today to put the 10 pits back into the total of 31 for fundamental review and saving later on against a


background of a published unemployment figure of 3.2 million and a true figure of probably 3.75 million, he will not carry the House on Wednesday night.

Mr. Heseltine: I must rest with the arguments which I have deployed and which I will continue to deploy. I cannot believe that my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friends want me to incur public expenditure keeping open pits which are uneconomic at prices today which are going to be slashed tomorrow and keeping open pits supplying a market which will decline by 25 million tonnes next April. I cannot believe that the House wants me to take part in all the discussions that Governments properly carry out about the priority of public expenditure—cutting resources here, cutting programmes there and making arbitrary decisions there—the consequence of which is that I would have money to keep open uneconomic pits against the advice of the people who have to manage them.

Mr. Kevin Hughes: The Bentley and Hatfield pits are in my constituency. Neither of them is uneconomic and both have made a profit this year. The people who work in the collieries cannot understand, and nor can anyone else, why the Government are shutting economic pits which are making a profit when PowerGen and National Power are supplying electricity to the regional electricity companies, when gas is 30 per cent. dearer, and when nuclear power is up to 350 times dearer. The only person in the country who will not accept the argument is the Secretary of State. No one can understand what the Secretary of State is playing at unless, as was said earlier, this is a vindictive attack in response to the 1974 dispute.

Mr. Heseltine: I think that I can answer the hon. Gentleman's question. The calculations of profit to which he referred are based on the present £1.88 per gigajoule which British Coal is receiving for its coal. The calculation that British Coal has to make is not in the context of what it receives today but what it knows it is at most likely to receive next April. That is the dilemma. It will receive next April only what someone is prepared to pay it. No one is prepared to continue to pay a price of the sort that leads to the notional profit to which the hon. Gentleman referred. That is the difficulty.

Mr. Michael Shersby: My right hon. Friend expressed concern in his statement that some miners would use redundancy money to invest in some of the pits that are proposed for closure. What inquiries have the Government received and what advice has my right hon. Friend received about the possibility of any of the pits being sold to the UDM or any other interests? Will he also tell us whether he has considered breaking the monopoly of British Coal?

Mr. Heseltine: There are inquiries. There are not very many, but there have been a few. I have to say that some of them tend to come from miners or their representatives who are concerned about the reduction in opportunities in their area. However, I would not wish to give any sign to my hon. Friend that there is a significant market for a significant number of those pits. I believe that there will be a market under the privatisation proposals for British Coal once we have been through this uncomfortable process. However, I do not believe that there is a significant market for the pits which are scheduled for closure.
My hon. Friend asked whether I had considered the idea of breaking British Coal's monopoly. The one thing that we have learnt this afternoon is that British Coal does not have a monopoly. It is very much in the market and has to compete on very onerous terms.

Mr. Geoffrey Hoon: If the supposed justification for the closure of Silverhill colliery in my constituency is the operation of market forces, why has Britain imported coal that has gone straight on the stockpiles at pitheads and power stations? Was it to bolster a bad Government case? Are the stockpiles there to justify the action taken to close Silverhill immediately? Is it not time that there was a stockpile of redundant Ministers?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman will realise that the decisions on what coal to import, the volume in which it is imported and where it is stocked are matters for the generators, not matters for British Coal or matters for which I have any direct responsibility. If the generating companies or regional electricity companies imported coal, they would be responsible for their own decision. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. Michael Colvin: Will my right hon. Friend confirm, just for the record, that during their most recent 11 years in office Labour Governments closed twice as many pits as Conservative Governments have closed in the past 13 years? Furthermore, since 1985, more than 100 pits have been closed with the loss of more than 100,000 jobs. That is three times the number proposed at present. They were closed with the minimum of economic, social and political difficulty because the closures were phased over a period. Therefore, it was the rapidity of the present proposals and the way in which the announcement was handled which caused the reaction from Chesterfield to Cheltenham. It was not the long-term strategy of reducing our coal-mining capacity, which is accepted by most people, including the Select Committee on Energy, which studied the subject only last year.

Mr. Heseltine: I do not disagree with my hon. Friend's analysis. I do not wish to comment on the number of pits that were closed or the number of miners who left the industry under which Government. However, there has been a remorseless reduction in the industry post-war, regardless of which Government were in power. In reaching a judgment, the House will wish to bear in mind that the Government have invested more in the coal industry since 1979 than all previous post-war Governments put together.

Several hon. Members: rose——

Madam Speaker: Order. So that the House may know my intention, I inform hon. Members that at 5.30 pm I intend to call the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) who, I understand, wants to make a response. We shall have questions until 5.30 pm.

Mr. Jimmy Boyce: I wonder what the people of Britain will make of the statement of the President of the Board of Trade today. First, he takes sole responsibility. Perhaps that is because there is no longer any collective Cabinet responsibility. The right hon. Gentleman also tells us—[Interruption] I shall come to the question in two seconds, Madam Speaker. The President of the Board of Trade also tells us that he agonised for months over the decision to close the pits. Yet


yesterday, in "On the Record", he told the interviewer, Mr. Dimbleby, that he did not have time to telephone the Secretary of State for Wales. That is what he said; it is on the record. Then he said that he was frightened of leaks. Was that because he thought that the Secretary of State would leak the decision?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for taking so much trouble to listen to what I had to say in "On the Record", but it would help if he had understood what I said. I made it absolutely clear that my right hon. Friend should have been informed of the announcement that that pit would be closed one day earlier than he was, and I have accepted full responsibility for that. British Coal submitted that name to my Department very late, and we did not transmit it to my right hon. Friend as fast as we should have done. There was absolutely no other explanation for that except that it was an administrative oversight for which I have apologised to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Eric Pickles: My right hon. Friend referred earlier to the success of British Coal Enterprise in finding jobs for redundant miners. Will he give the House an assurance that before any redundancies are announced the measures that he announced today will be in place? Does he agree that the communities affected by the pit closures have a right to success and a right to look for jobs after coal? Does he further agree that the most tragic thing that could come out of the moratorium would be to raise hopes and expectations in those areas that suddenly markets for coal will appear when currently no such markets exist?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend has put the heart of the case which persuaded me that it was right to move forward. On all the evidence put to me—I shall have to explain it in detail to the House—the market will decline by 25 million tonnes next April. Therefore, I did not think it fair to those communities or desirable in their long-term interests to suggest that the market would exist. That is why I took the decision that I did, on the advice of the coal board. However, in the light of events, I have made the statement that I have to the House today.
I hope that the message that my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) has sent out will be understood. The message is that we are giving time for a wider understanding and a slower pace in certain circumstances. But that does not create a market for coal. Therefore, I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that we intend to proceed, with Lord Walker's help, with the implementation of the measures which I and my right hon. Friends have announced today.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Yesterday the President of the Board of Trade told the country that there was no alternative to the policy that he then had. Last night, together with the Prime Minister, he cobbled together an alternative policy. Can he tell the country how he can put forward a different policy before the House with any integrity? Will he explain how he can stand here with a new policy and still claim to have any integrity as a Minister?

Mr. Heseltine: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not fully understood, but I have explained, as clearly as

possible, that there will be a lack of demand for 25 million tonnes of coal in the market place next April. I cannot create that market place. Therefore, it is important for me to explain to the House and to let the House debate and examine the implications pit by pit of the dilemma that British Coal faces. We can consult on these matters. That is what I have said today, but it does not change the basic dilemma that I have had to face ever since I took on this job.

Mr. Anthony Steen: Although I do not have any coal mines in my constituency, I have many concerned constituents who were very distressed. They have written many letters and they have telephoned me, as have the constituents of many other colleagues, about the way in which this matter has been handled. There is great anxiety that the matter should be clear in the future.
Could the President of the Board of Trade say something about the enterprise zones? He knows that I have been very interested in enterprise zones, and he and I have been involved in setting them up. They have not all been a success. Some of them need clarification. Does he agree that enterprise zones could be considered for the 10 mines that will be closed? Does he agree that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could consider increasing the tax benefits for setting up companies in enterprise zones so that companies do not simply move from outside the enterprise zones to inside them to avoid certain rates and taxes? Does he agree that there could be a real tax-free zone in enterprise zones where the coal mines were in the past?

Mr. Heseltine: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in not only enterprise zones but the whole issue of regeneration. While I can guess that the enterprise zone with which he deals is not as successful] as others, he will be aware that the broad picture has been of immense diversification and considerable success. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has no intention, as far as I am aware, to change the basis of the incentives which apply to enterprise zones. The concept of enterprise zones is a weapon that we are prepared to use in this case. We shall consider establishing such zones where we think it appropriate and where the area will benefit from it. We have not yet reached a decision on where enterprise zones will be established or the number.

Mr. Eric Illsley: So that no one is in any doubt, will the President of the Board of Trade confirm that all 31 collieries will still close, perhaps not next week, but by next April? Will he confirm that, notwithstanding anything he has said today, he intends to close 31 pits? Will he also bear in mind that two of the 10 collieries announced for immediate closure are in Barnsley? The devastating effect that those closures will have on that community is not worth thinking about when one bears in mind that we have lost thousands of jobs in the area since 1985.

Mr. Heseltine: I accept the hon. Gentleman's argument about the problems in Barnsley. That is one reason why in my initial statement I announced assisted area status. I believe that that will be a help, but I am fully aware there there will be difficulties, which I have always accepted.
As for the hon. Member's question about the 31 pits, he and the House know, as I have repeated it many times, that there is a gap of 25 million tonnes in the market for British


coal. On that basis, one is led remorselessly to the uncomfortable conclusions that I first announced. Ten closures will proceed and there will be a moratorium, during which I shall produce detailed calculations for the House, and there will be a further debate. I shall not say that at the margin there will be no change in policy. How can I do so if I intend to make a statement to the House and invite it to debate the implications?
I cannot know whether other purchasers may emerge who may be interested in becoming involved in any of those pits. There will be an opportunity for all those things, but, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles), I do not want to give the impression that the gap in the market projected by British Coal will simply be filled because there is a moratorium.

Mr. James Coachman: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement today and the moratorium that he has announced, which eases the brutality of last week's announcement by British Coal, can he assure the House that the 21 pits included in the moratorium will continue to work normally throughout that time, that the work force will work properly and for the normal number of hours, and that no steps will be taken to pre-empt decisions that might be taken after the moratorium? Furthermore, can he assure the House that there will be complete transparency in the economic case that he sets before the House for each of the 31 pits concerned?

Mr. Heseltine: I want to help my hon. Friend. It is my intention to be as frank as I can in the statement that I shall make to the House. I understand how much interest the matter has created, and it is incumbent on me to satisfy the proper concern of my hon. and right hon. Friends.
I think that I made it clear in my statement that, at the 21 pits covered by the moratorium, voluntary redundancies will be available and there will be no closure unless it is by agreement of the work force.

Mr. Mark Fisher: Does the President of the Board of Trade realise that his statement promising the coal industry not a new policy but a slow death by delay will be viewed with dismay and disgust by people throughout the country and especially in Stoke-on-Trent where Trentham remains marked for closure? Does he realise that that pit set a European record last year for the fastest 2 million tonnes of coal ever mined and made a substantial profit? Is he aware that his claim that the pit lost £20 million this year is a fraud, because that figure includes one-off capital investment in a new administration office block, a new stockyard, a new fitting shop and new seams? Will he undertake an independent inquiry so that he can base his future actions on real facts and not on fakes?

Mr. Heseltine: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman takes into account the fact that there is no gain to British Coal in closing pits unless it sees no realistic alternative. If it sees no realistic alternative, there is no gain to British Coal in closing any other than the least efficient pits. British Coal will be charged with the responsibility for maintaining the fabric of its organisation and will obviously maintain that best if it keeps the best pits. So there is no logic in the assumptions upon which the hon. Gentleman based his question.

Mr. John Marshall: Will cheaper electricity not generate additional job opportunities in energy-intensive industry? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the only alternative to his statement is the creation of coal stocks equal to 18 months or two years' consumption—coal stocks which would make the butter mountains of the European Community appear to be mere hillocks?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend raises two points. Coal stocks are an issue that no one can avoid. They are increasing at the rate of 1 million tonnes a month. Miners in their communities know that. They mine the coal and there it is, either at the generating stations or at the pit head because there is no demand—to the tune of 1 million tonnes per month—for the coal that is being mined. Demand is scheduled to reduce by perhaps 25 million tonnes during the next few months.
My hon. Friend's second point is equally right. If we impose higher electricity charges on industry, it will make it less competitive and as a consequence there will be fewer jobs in industry. That is the sort of dilemma that we must balance.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Coming from a constituency which has endured three colliery closures within the past seven and a half months, may I convey to the Secretary of State the anxiety, the feelings and the depression of miners, with an average age of 27 years, who have moved from pit to pit with the guarantee that there will be no compulsory redundancies and who have been totally isolated and neglected and are now near, not to hope, but to despair? How can he reconcile the fact that he proposes to close profitable pits with the fact that uneconomic, dangerous nuclear power stations are being highly subsidised—to the tune of £1,260 million a year levy—and still command 20 per cent. of our total energy market? Could not the production from profitable pits replace at least 50 per cent. of that and save 10,000 miners' jobs? How can he justify the fact that the market competitiveness that he boasts about cannot have a level playing field because of a subsidised levy to protect the vested interests of the nuclear industry?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman ignores the cost of decommissioning the old nuclear plant. The nuclear levy exists to meet those costs. When the hon. Gentleman talks about a subsidy of more than £1 billion a year, he completely forgets the £18 billion which has gone in to the coal industry during the past 12 years.

Mr. Rod Richards: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Point of Ayr colliery in Clwyd has a market, at competitive rates, for every tonne of coal that it produces and that, even by British Coal's criteria, it should not have been included in the closure list in the first place?

Mr. Heseltine: My hon. Friend will appreciate that, as I have told many hon. Members, British Coal must calculate on the market that it foresees and not on today's market, and on the prices that it expects next April. It is well able to anticipate that position now because it is negotiating with the generators contracts which name tonnage and prices. Against that inescapable background, British Coal has made these extremely difficult proposals to me.

Mr. David Hanson: I have not once heard the Secretary of State and President of the Board of Trade apologise during this debate to the 500 miners in my constituency for the uncertainty of the closure proposals and the uncertainties that they face during the next six to nine months of the moratorium. Point of Ayr was included at the last minute and should not have been included. Why does he not take action today to ban imports of coal, which are damaging the industry, and to consider the gas situation? The gas will not go away; it is there. Why do we not have a proper, planned energy strategy which will secure the future of my miners, constituents and community?

Mr. Heseltine: Again, the hon. Gentleman will be more aware of the precise details than I am—[Interruption.] I understand that the hon. Gentleman's dilemma is that there are proposals for a gas and oil installation with an investment of some £2 billion alongside the Point of Ayr pit. That is the dilemma that we all face—a £2 billion investment to provide cheaper fuel for the electricity generating world alongside a pit which British Coal says is uneconomical and which it wishes to close. The £2 billion will create a huge number of jobs in the area concerned. There is a trade off, as hon. Members have discovered time and again.

Mr. Robin Cook: As the House will have an opportunity on Wednesday to go over the many questions that the Secretary of State has left unanswered, only one point needs to be put on the record today. To remove the confusion that appears to exist among Conservative Back Benchers and so that there is no misunderstanding of the point when we debate it on Wednesday, will the Secretary of State confirm that there is no review—independent or otherwise—proposed in his statement? On the contrary, his statement commits him during the moratorium to
set out the full case for the closures which … I agreed".
There is no hint of a review here. If the Secretary of State is so confident of his case, why is he not willing to take his chance of arguing it before an independent review?

Mr. Heseltine: I have answered that question time and time again. I have told the House today that I shall set out in considerable detail the case upon which British Coal made its recommendations to me. I shall set out the implications of that and put them before the House once there has been a moratorium which will enable a discussion and consultations to take place. We shall not proceed with further closures until after the House has had a debate, after the moratorium has ended and after my report to the House has been made.
The hon. Gentleman wants to produce a review that will apparently raise a range of conflicting arguments upon which there will be no agreement before, during or after the review. As I said to one of my hon. Friends, those matters are deeply controversial within the energy industry, every part of which has a vested interest that it will not abandon, whatever the evidence put before it.
Ultimately, I am responsible for the Government's energy policy, which I shall set out, and I shall make clear the basis on which we intend to proceed—[HON. MEMBERS: "Resign."]

Madam Speaker: Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) wishes to make an application under Standing Order No. 20.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: When the announcement was made last Tuesday, I wrote to you, Madam Speaker with respect to a Standing Order No. 20 emergency debate on the pit closure programme. Following that, the shadow Cabinet decided to allocate a supply day and, quite properly, to debate this issue. I believe that my request for an emergency debate tomorrow should continue so that we have a two-day debate to hear everything that my hon. Friends, in particular, want to say. At least 20 of them did not get a chance to put their questions today and many questions have remained unanswered, not least the last one put by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) about a review.
The President of the Board of Trade has been hoodwinking the people out there this afternoon. In particular, he has been hoodwinking some of his Back Benchers to give them the impression that he has delivered a moratorium when in fact he will conduct whatever limited review takes place and come back with whatever he likes. That is one of the unanswered questions.
This matter is urgent, important and specific. It is important because the Government talk about ballots yet when they discussed the matter in Cabinet they did not even have a ballot because they did not have a full Cabinet. It is also important as the matter is being rushed through because of the remaining 40 per cent. of the electricity industry to be privatised. There is 40 per cent. left to sell and the Government want to rush it through to line their friends' pockets. That is why they cannot afford to wait more than three months. They also want to get hold of the pension funds. There is £13 billion in the two pension funds belonging to the miners and others who work in the industry. It is estimated that another £1 billion is left, and the Treasury will try to get its hands on that £1 billion to pay for redundancies. That is the Government's game.
A woman in my constituency sent me a parcel yesterday. She said, "Here, take this to Heseltine. This is a miner's suit. He works in a hot seam. There's his pants; there's his vest. Give 'em to Heseltine. I hope he gets the other 30,999 and then he'll have an invaluable national asset." Here, take them. The woman said, "P.S. I've washed them, but the socks need darning." Why does not the Secretary of State put them on, clean up that coal outside his front gate, and never return?

Madam Speaker: Order. I have listened carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has said and must give my decision without stating any reasons for doing so. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20. Therefore, at this stage, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This concerns the conduct of the President of the Board of Trade. You will be aware, Madam Speaker, that on 4 March, the former and now defunct Energy Select Committee of the House—the House and the public set great store by Select Committees—published a three-volume report of 300 pages concerning the consequences of electricity privatisation. An important section of that was about the consequences for the coal industry. The Secretary of State published a response—or claimed response—on 9 June. As you will be aware, Madam Speaker, under a Cabinet minute available to all Select Committee members, the normal procedure is


that the Government supply a response to a Select Committee report—that report had no fewer than 50 conclusions and recommendations—either by oral statement in the House, a command paper, or a memorandum to the Chair of the Committee concerned, perhaps supplemented by written answers.
In this case, a written answer and a press release referred to two documents that had been placed in the Library as deposited documents. Some hon. Members may not know that those are not normally available to the media. The two documents consisted of one memorandum of three and a half pages from the Secretary of State responding to nine of the 50 conclusions and recommendations of the Select Committee. There was another memorandum by the Director of Electricity Supply to the other 41. Some were replied to by both.
That semi-secret method and the mode of reply were not in accordance with the expectations or requirements of the House. It could be argued that, if some of those recommendations had been adopted, what we have discussed today would not have occurred. Will you therefore, Madam Speaker, rule on whether the Secretary of State's conduct was in accordance with the House's expectations? If it is not within your power so to rule, will you state by whom, which Committee and what means the President's disgraceful and inadequate conduct in a democratic state can be further examined?

Mr. Heseltine: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I cannot allow a response from the Government to a point of order which is directed to me, in the Chair, as I am sure that the Secretary of State will understand.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) for giving me notice of his point of order, with a full explanation of what he had in mind. I believe that he is aware that the Government's response to a Select Committee report is a matter between the Government and the Committee—in this case the successor Committee to the Select Committee on Energy, the Select Committee

on Trade and Industry. Therefore, alleged inadequacies in a reply do not raise questions that can be considered a point of order for me. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has many ideas about how to pursue the matter in other ways.

Mr. Heseltine: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, may I seek your guidance as I want to help the House and clarify the matter. I shall immediately investigate how the situation arose—I suspect that it was to do with the fact that the Select Committee no longer exists. If the documents are not in the public domain, I shall seek an opportunity to put them there.

Madam Speaker: I am sure that the House appreciates what the Secretary of State has said.

Ms. Joan Walley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe that the House has been misled this afternoon. It has been given the impression that there is to be an independent review with a moratorium. In view of the fact that Trentham pit has already ceased operations on the evidence of——

Madam Speaker: Order. I want to help every Member when I can. I know that the hon. Lady has a deep constituency interest in the matter, but she is attempting to prolong questions on the statement, and I cannot let her do that by means of a point of order. I have every sympathy with her and I am sorry that I could not call her, but there are many other Members who I have been unable to call. I cannot allow further debate on the matter now.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This afternoon the Secretary of Trade failed to mention the future of Tursdale workshop in my constituency——

Madam Speaker: Order. That is a very good try, but it is not a point of order for the Chair. I saw the hon. Gentleman rising earlier and I think that he had better leave the matter with me for later. I might remember his face in a few days' time.

Orders of the Day — Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Before I move to the substance of the debate, I shall take this opportunity to congratulate the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on his appointment as shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. It is a major achievement and I am sure that the House will wish to congratulate him on it. I hope that he will enjoy as long and distinguished a career in that position as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who will be missed at our deliberations. I also congratulate the hon. Gentleman's new Front-Bench colleagues and wish them everything that I wished their predecessors.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is it the Secretary of State's intention to seek the creation of a Special Standing Committee under Standing Order No. 91? It seems that the Bill contains important measures on the management of our prisons, and such a Committee—which can meet on no more than four occasions—would be a useful way to allow Members to cross-examine witnesses and send for papers relating to this important legislation.

Mr. Lang: I certainly agree that the Bill is full of technical and detailed measures which it will be appropriate to scrutinise closely in Committee. Indeed, I fear that my speech today may become more detailed than I would normally wish in a Second Reading debate, but it flows from the fruits of the work of the Kincraig committee—an immensely distinguished and reasonably broadly based committee. That committee report was extensively consulted and applies to a specialist sector—the House already has the benefit of an enormous degree of scrutiny and careful consideration. That will inform our deliberations in Committee as well as any Standing Committee would. Therefore, I am not minded to accede to the hon. Gentleman's request for a Special Standing Committee on this occasion, although I acknowledge the potential role of such Committees in some circumstances.[Interruption.]

Mr. John Marshall: I have been here, and in my place, since 2.30 pm—unlike some Members who have just entered the Chamber.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that there is widespread concern about the operation of clause 32(5), which was inserted in another place against the advice of the Government through an amendment tabled by Lord Campbell of Alloway? That clause will make it much more difficult to prosecute war criminals, who are among some of the most beastly men—if not the most beastly men—in this country. Will my right hon. Friend assure us that he will seek to reverse that decision of the House of Lords?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend mentioned clause 32, and in the interest of orderly progress, I shall come to that later in my speech. When I do so, I think that I shall give my hon. Friend the sort of reassurance that he seeks.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: There is at least one respect in which the Government have rejected the recommendations of the Kincraig report in a material matter that affects the terms of the Bill. Is not that, of itself, a compelling reason for hearing what Lord Kincraig and others with an interest in the matter have to say in a Special Standing Committee?

Mr. Lang: It is a more compelling reason for getting the Bill into Committee quickly so that the House can satisfy itself that the Government's attitude is right. The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that there are a number of points on which the Government disagreed with the Kincraig committee, for reasons which have been spelt out in another place—and which will be spelt out in Committee in this place. That is not a compelling reason to use the Special Standing Committee procedure.
As the short title suggests, the Bill serves two main purposes. The first is to reform existing arrangements for the early release of prisoners. The second is to make improvements in the law governing criminal evidence and criminal procedure in Scotland.
The Bill is limited in scope. It does not change the substantive criminal law or significantly affect the structure of penalties available to the court. The measures in part I are, however, designed to lead to greater fairness, consistency and openness in the administration of custodial sentences. They are long awaited, and I am confident in saying that in principle they command support across the political spectrum of the House.
As for part II, the measures will improve the administration of pre-trial and trial procedures, avoid unnecessary burdens being placed on witnesses, clarify the rights of accused persons and speed up the business of the courts. Those are highly desirable aims which I hope will be welcomed by hon. Members.
Most of the provisions in part I stem from the recommendations of the Kincraig committee. More formally, that was the committee of inquiry into parole and related issues in Scotland, the chairman of which was Lord Kincraig. I should like to acknowledge our indebtness to that committee. Its report was generally very well received and our proposals reflect the wide acceptability of most of its recommendations.
During the process of consultation, some reservations were expressed about what were essentially matters of detail. Where there is variation from what the committee recommended, it is largely to take account of such reservations. However, the committee established a framework of principles for a new early-release system, and the provisions in the Bill are built upon that framework.
Part of the purpose of the new early-release provisions is to toughen the deterrent effect of sentences for serious crime. There are those who argue that the sentence of the court should mean precisely what it says—a fixed number of years in custody. The Government believe, however, like the Kincraig committee, that a better approach is to allow, within the compass of the total sentence, for a period in custody, and a period in the community during which the offender will be encouraged to resettle under


supervision. The provisions of part I will ensure that those sentenced to four years or more will spend at least half the period in custody, and that all will have supervision on release, potentially to the end of the period determined by the court.
An even more important change made by the Bill is to provide for the full outstanding portion of any sentence to be served, should the offender commit another offence punishable by imprisonment after his release, but before the full period specified in the sentence has elapsed. It is this measure that restores meaning to the full sentence of the court, and ensures that the deterrent effect of the sentence lasts for the full period intended by the court which passed it.
The provisions of part I also iron out a number of anomalies in the existing law. An important flaw in the existing system is that parole makes release at one third of sentence possible only for those serving longer determinate sentences. A prisoner serving 18 months or less must always serve at least two thirds of the sentence. A person convicted of serious offences may therefore serve a smaller proportion of his sentence than one convicted of a relatively less serious offence.
The new provisions address the paradox whereby, under the existing law, compulsory supervision is only available for adults released on parole, who by definition pose a low risk. At present, those released at two thirds of sentence having failed to obtain parole receive no supervision whatever. Yet these are the offenders who, by definition, are considered high risk.
The system of remission of up to one third of sentence as it now operates rules out the possibility of post-release supervision for those not granted parole. It also automatically devalues by one third the sentence passed by the court. Under the Bill, the concept of remission is abolished. The proposed new arrangements replace remission with the new concept of early-release entitlements, and address the other disadvantages of the existing arrangements.
The fundamental elements of the new system are provided in clauses 1 and 16 of the Bill. Under clause 1, every determinate sentence prisoner will be required to serve at least half his or her sentence in custody. Long-term prisoners—defined in clause 27 as those serving sentences of four years or more—will be eligible for parole at half sentence. If not granted parole, they are to be released on licence—under supervision—after serving two thirds. All long-term prisoners will thus be subject to post-release supervision.
Short-term prisoners—those serving less than four years—are to be released at half sentence with no automatic provision for post-release supervision. However, there is provision—in clause 14—for the courts to impose such supervision in certain cases.
All prisoners serving determinate sentences, whatever the length of sentence, will be subject to the provisions in clause 16. Under those provisions, as I have already said, a person who commits a further imprisonable offence during the period between release from prison and the end of the full sentence will be liable to be returned to prison for the remainder of that sentence, regardless of any penalty which may be imposed for the new offence.
Clause 1 also re-enacts existing provisions applying to the release of life prisoners. Under these provisions, the Secretary of State may release a life prisoner provided he has consulted the judiciary and has a positive

recommendation from the parole board. This retains the Secretary of State's ultimate discretion over the release of mandatory life prisoners—namely, those who have committed murder. Thus the crime of murder continues to be marked as uniquely serious in our law. Before a murderer can be released, it will continue to be the case that not only the parole board but the judiciary must give their views and the Secretary of State must be personally satisfied that release is appropriate. That is the safeguard which the public rightly expects in these difficult and sensitive cases.
Clause 2, however, introduces a new system for consideration of release in cases where the sentence of life has been passed not as a mandatory sentence, but as a maximum, expressly for the purpose of protecting the public. That new provision meets, for Scotland, the United Kingdom's obligation to change the law in accordance with the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell. A discretionary life prisoner is one on whom the court has imposed a life sentence partly as punishment for one or more offences and partly to protect the public. The ECHR judgment established that once the punitive grounds for the sentence no longer hold, the public risk ground is a matter which must be open to periodic review by a body having the status and constitution of a court.
Clause 2 provides for the court, when passing a discretionary life sentence, to determine by order the period for which the prisoner is to be detained on punitive grounds alone. At the end of that period, the prisoner will be entitled to periodic reviews of the continuing public risk grounds for his detention. For this purpose, we propose to bring forward rules under clause 20 whereby the parole board will be constituted and function as a court. If the board finds that it is no longer necessary for the safety of the public that the prisoner should continue to be detained, it will be able to direct his release on licence.
Having described at some length the main provisions in part I, I shall deal with the remainder.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: My attention is immediately attracted by the notion of the parole board operating as a court. Will it do so only in the limited respect made necessary by clause 2, or will the whole of the functions of the parole board be conducted as if it were a court? As the right hon. Gentleman will know, the latter would give rise to certain potential consequences with regard to the way in which the decisions of the parole board may be capable of review in another place.

Mr. Lang: The parole board will operate as a court in the case of these non-mandatory life sentences, and only in the context of the risk to the public, after the punitive component of the sentence has been dealt with.

Dr. Godman: Under clause 21, what kind of person will be appointed to the position of parole adviser? Will that be a voluntary position undertaken by, say, members of local review committees, or will the post be an additional role taken on by members of the social work departments in prisons?

Mr. Lang: Persons appointed as parole advisers will be appointed on merit, taking into account their experience and their suitability to give advice to the parole board. The hon. Gentleman may wish to pursue that point in Committee.
Clause 3 provides a new power to release a prisoner on licence at any stage of sentence if there are compassionate grounds for doing so. There are at present no satisfactory means of releasing, for example, a prisoner who becomes terminally ill or permanently disabled. If the case is very strong, I am able to exercise the royal prerogative of mercy on Her Majesty's behalf, but this is rarely appropriate. The parole board can intervene only if the prisoner is under parole review at the appropriate time, but it distorts the purpose of the board to expect it to recommend parole purely as a device to achieve release in these cases. The Kincraig committee, in highlighting the unsatisfactory nature of existing powers, recommended a new power, and clause 3 is based on its proposals. There will be consultation with the parole board about any proposal for compassionate release, provided time allows, but this will be designed to assist the Secretary of State to address the public risk. The initiative for compassionate release will remain with the Secretary of State and will not be delegated to the board.
Clauses 4 to 9 deal with the application of the new early-release arrangements in particular circumstances or to particular classes of prisoner or detainee, including prisoners who are transferred to mental hospitals; fine defaulters and those imprisoned for contempt of court; young offenders and children; and prisoners who are subject to deportation on release. So far as possible all classes of persons held in custody will have comparable early release entitlements, but there are certain important differences.
One particular difference which I should like to highlight is that the release of children sentenced by the courts will be possible at any time, on the positive recommendation of the parole board. They will not have to wait for any particular proportion of sentence to elapse before release can be considered. Even children sentenced to less than four years will be supervised on release, thus taking into account the particular need for social work support for those who have committed crimes at a very young age.
Clause 10 sets out the conditions under which a life prisoner transferred to Scotland from another jurisdiction is to be treated as a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of clause 2. Clauses 11, 12, 13 and 17 deal with the duration and conditions of licences—in particular, the condition of compulsory social work supervision which will attach to all licences at the point of release—and with revocation of licences.
Clauses 14, 15, 18 and 19 provide for a new supervised release order to be imposed at the discretion of the courts on certain short-term prisoners, for the variation of such orders, penalties for breach of supervision requirements, and appeals.
The Kincraig committee recommended that there should be no compulsory supervision for those released from sentences of five years or less, but that was one of the few recommendations that attracted adverse comment. Concern was expressed about the need for post-release supervision of some shorter-term prisoners, especially those convicted of violent offences or offences against children. The provision for supervised release orders is designed to meet that concern.
I shall describe a supervised release order as akin to a mini-probation order added to the end of the custodial part of a sentence. The order may be made by the sentencing court in passing a sentence of 12 months or more, but under four years. It will require the offender to comply with social work supervision on release from custody for a period not exceeding 12 months. The purpose of the order, as stated in the Bill, is to protect the public from serious harm. The circumstances in which a supervised release order should be made will be for the judicial discretion, but we envisage that it will be particularly appropriate in cases of sexual or violent offending. The offender who breaches the order will be dealt with by the court that made it, and may be returned to custody for the whole outstanding period of the order since the breach.
Clause 20 and schedule 2 provide for the continued existence of the Parole Board for Scotland. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate has already, in another place, paid tribute to the sterling work of the parole board and in particular its chairman for the past 12 years, Mrs. Jean Morris. One cannot speak too highly of the dedication, experience and care with which she and the other members of the board carry out their onerous duties. In addition to the re-enactment—with some modifications—of existing provisions relating to the board, the Bill will enable the Secretary of State to delegate to the board, by order, the power to decide rather than advise on the release of specified classes of prisoner.
Clause 20 also empowers the Secretary of State to issue policy directions to the board which will clarify the basis for parole decisions. Expressly, the Bill provides that in giving his directions, the Secretary of State should have regard to the need to protect the public from serious harm from offenders, and the desirability of preventing the commission by offenders of further offences and of securing their rehabilitation. That provision gives public risk central prominence in the parole decision, as recommended by the Kincraig committee.
Clause 21 provides for the appointment of parole advisers, whose function—as recommended by the Kincraig committee—will be to assist prisoners who otherwise might have difficulty in understanding the parole system or in expressing adequately any representations that they may wish to make to the board. The purpose of clauses 22 and 23 is to provide the Secretary of State with adequate powers in relation to the assignment and transfer of prisoners, and the temporary holding of young offenders in prisons.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: Clause 24 is the only one that refers to untried prisoners. As the Secretary of State is aware, a prison governor is responsible for the discipline of untried prisoners, but who is responsible for their safety? In Barlinnie prison in my constituency, two people have taken their lives and there has been one attempted suicide in the past nine months. Surely the Government are responsible for safety.

Mr. Lang: I am subject to later correction, but I anticipate that the governor is responsible for such matters within his prison. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about these sad cases in which, too often, young prisoners take their lives in trying and difficult circumstances.
As I said earlier, the provisions in part II of the Bill would make a number of useful improvements in the law relating to both evidence and procedure in criminal proceedings. Clause 28 gives effect to recommendations made by the Scottish Law Commission in its "Report on Evidence: Blood Group Tests, DNA Tests, and Other Related Matters". It provides a statutory framework for the taking during criminal investigations of fingerprints, impressions and other forensic samples.
Clause 29 and schedule 3 make provision for statements in business documents to be admissible in criminal proceedings. They also provide for copies of documents to be admissible as being equivalent to the originals. These provisions, which were moved in another place by my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate in response to an amendment tabled by the noble Lord Macaulay of Bragar, reflect work carried out by the Scottish Law Commission following publication of a discussion paper by the commission. It is thought that those provisions will serve to reduce the need for witnesses to attend court to give evidence which is otherwise contained in such documents.
Clause 30 makes provision to bring the law up to date in respect of the admissibility of evidence contained in audio or video recordings. Clause 31 provides, in effect, that the transcript of an interview between a customs officer and an accused person is to be received in evidence on the same basis as the transcript of an interview between a police officer and an accused person.
The purpose of clause 32 is to make it possible for evidence in solemn proceedings, whether in the High Court of Justiciary or before the sheriff, to be given from abroad by live television link, with appropriate safeguards. I should like to dispel any misunderstandings about the nature of this provision. It is not designed to enable video-taped evidence to be given in Scottish courts. The link would be live. The witness would be televised giving evidence in a courtroom abroad and the television monitor in Scotland would show live proceedings.
The provision could be used to benefit either the prosecution or the defence case. It is quite possible that the defence case could be reliant on testimony from a witness residing abroad, who could not be compelled to attend the court in Scotland. The provision is in no way biased towards the prosecution. Moreover, the provision embodies stringent safeguards for the rights of the accused. Either party may apply to the court for the use of a live television link, but if the application is by the prosecution, the court must be satisfied that it is not unfair to the accused. The court must also be satisfied that it is in the interest of justice, and that the evidence which the witness is able to give is necessary for the proper adjudication of the trial.
Similar provision has existed in England and Wales since the Criminal Justice Act 1988. The law of Scotland has fallen behind in this area. It is right that the parties to a trial and their witnesses should be able to benefit from the use of modern technology, where it is in the interests of justice for them to do so. Therefore, it is a matter of concern that, as the House is aware, subsection (5) of clause 32 was added to the provisions in this clause in another place against the Government's advice and policy. It would preclude the taking of evidence from abroad by live television link in any proceedings under the War Crimes Act 1991.
In the Government's view, which I suspect many hon. Members will share, it is unacceptable that there should be different evidential provision for trials under that Act. It creates anomalies in the law of Scotland purely to meet concerns in another place about war crimes legislation. The principle of war crimes legislation has, however, been established by this House, and we do not intend to allow that question to be reopened by an indirect route. We therefore intend to bring forward an amendment to clause 32 to remove subsection (5).
Many hon. Members hold strong views on the issues which arise in connection with clause 32 and will wish to take part in the debate on that amendment. Therefore, I propose to table the amendment on Report so that we may have a more open debate than would be possible in Committee. I trust that members of the Committee will feel able to exercise restraint so as not to anticipate or pre-empt debate on the amendment at a later stage. We hope and believe that, as a result of that debate, the message will go loud and clear to the other place that this House supports the clause in its original and unamended form.
Clauses 33 to 35 contain further provisions in relation to the giving of evidence by children in criminal proceedings. The broad aim of these provisions is to reduce the stress on children who are involved in such proceedings, while safeguarding—as we must—the rights of the accused.

Dr. Godman: The Secretary of State knows that I am keenly interested in clauses 32 to 35. Am I right in thinking that the whole of a child's evidence may be taken pre-trial? If such a procedure is followed, a child need not attend the criminal trial.

Mr. Lang: That is my understanding. It would involve not just a child giving evidence but a child being cross-examined by the defence and the prosecution precisely in order to avoid the kind of stress that would result from bringing him or her to the courtroom in what could be difficult and stressful circumstances.
Clause 36 gives effect to the provisions in schedule 4 to the Bill, which further extend existing law on certificate evidence. Clause 37 clarifies the procedures for adjournment for inquiry in summary proceedings. Clause 38 extends existing provisions which enable a court to order a preliminary diet so that agreement may be reached before a trial on matters of evidence or other issues. Clause 39 makes provision for a judge sitting in solemn proceedings to deal with other business while the jury are considering their verdict. Clause 40 amends existing legislation so as to require courts to specify the date of commencement of a sentence of imprisonment or detention, and to give reasons where such a sentence is not backdated to take account of time spent in custody before sentence. Clause 41, the last in part II, will enable the Crown to apply to the court to set aside a conviction where the prosecutor believes that the judgment on which that conviction is founded should not be maintained.
Provision for a number of additional procedural reforms is made in schedule 5 to the Bill.
I hope that this overview of the Bill has been helpful to the House. It is, as I say, a Bill whose basic intentions command cross-party support.

Dr. Godman: Will the Secretary of State give me an assurance that he will, by way of the Bill, set up a visiting


committee for the prison in Greenock? He will surely agree that visiting committees play an important part in managing tension and dealing with grievances within prisons and that the present circumstances in Greenock are wholly untenable. As Lord Fraser of Carmyllie said to me in a recent letter, that prison needs a visiting committee.

Mr. Lang: The Bill makes no provision for such matters because there is no need for a change in statutory arrangements to enable a visiting committee to be set up in Greenock. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will wish to pursue that matter in Committee, where he will have the opportunity to table amendments and speak to them. I share his view on the value of such committees and the desirability of having them.
In conclusion, I believe that the basic intentions of the Bill command cross-party support. I look forward to constructive and helpful debate which concentrates on the detail rather than on the basic principles of what we are trying to achieve. I commend the Bill to the House. It embraces a considerable number of small but immensely worthwhile reforms.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I begin by thanking the Secretary of State for the kind comments that he made at the start of his speech. I think that it was Harold Macmillan who once said that a few kind words in politics go a long way. I appreciate what the Secretary of State said. Perhaps on reflection he will feel that the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) about the Special Standing Committee is at least worthy of consideration, as there is a great deal of support for it. I know that he replied to that suggestion off the cuff.
I welcome, as my hon. Friends will, the firmness that the Secretary of State showed over clause 32. The House having made its view on principle absolutely plain, it is right and reasonable that modern technology should be made available to assist the courts in reaching their conclusions.
The Opposition are pleased that the Bill has finally arrived at Second Reading but I am appalled at the length of time it has taken to reach this stage. Hon. Members will recall the timescale. The Kincraig committee first met in January 1988 and published its report in March 1989. The Government's response was produced in September 1990—over two years ago. In England and Wales, the main recommendations of the Carlisle report were incorporated in the Criminal Justice Act 1991 which came into force on 1 October 1992. However, in Scotland we are still discussing the Kincraig report.
As the Secretary of State will be aware, the Parole Board for Scotland, in its annual report for 1991, felt so strongly that it
expressed its concern that the delay in implementing the recommendations of the Kincraig Report, published in March 1989, would lead to anomalies between the Scottish and English judiciaries and create uncertainty for those involved in the parole process.
The incompetence in the Government's administrative approach has left Scotland yet again following behind England and Wales. Not only that, but the Bill proposes reforms that would benefit the whole prison system but

that are left unimplemented. That cannot be good for our already overstretched prison system. I urge the Government to show considerably more vigilance on these important matters.
I find it surprising that, over this period, the Government have not found time for a debate on the report. The Opposition owe a great deal—we acknowledge it—to Lord Macaulay of Bragar, who had the matter raised in another place. We are thankful for his input in the Bill.
Before I examine in detail the issues addressed in the Bill, I must qualify my initial pleasure at the fact that we have at last reached Second Reading. I think that many organisations involved in this sector agree that an opportunity has been missed—the opportunity to introduce a new Prisons Act to replace existing legislation. As many hon. Members will be aware, the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 simply consolidated earlier amendments to the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952, which was itself a consolidation of previous legislation. Therefore, we have a system operating on out-of-date legislation and one that is in desperate need of a thorough overhaul. The Secretary of State will know that there is much support for that view.
If the Government had taken the bold but necessary step of introducing a new Prisons Act, many wider issues of concern not included in this Bill could have been taken into consideration—issues such as prison legislation and prisoners' rights. The House will know that prison rules are, in the main, made by means of statutory instruments, which lack real heavyweight legislative status. Everyday life in prison for the prisoners is determined by prison administrators, without real public scrutiny. I was glad to read that the Government undertook to review the prison rules. I look forward to seeing a timetable for this, as this is clearly a much needed reform which would be greatly welcomed.
The basic principle of attempting to reduce the prison population in Scotland is highly desirable. This is all the more so because the prison population in Scotland is 5,350 as opposed to 4,750 some 12 months ago—a significant rise in such a short period. The considerable cost of imprisoning a person means that such a rise results in an expensive bill. It is interesting to note that the average sentence in 1950 was 30 days, but by 1985 this had increased to 241. The uneven distribution of population in Scottish prisons has caused the major problems of which we are all aware when we look at the incidents that have taken place over a long period and resulted in enormous strain on everyone concerned, not least prison staff.
It may interest hon. Members to know that 40 per cent. of the Scottish prison population consists of fine defaulters. When it is considered that on average it costs about £12,000 to keep someone in prison for 12 months, I am sure that the House will agree that there must be better ways of dealing with fine defaulters and that we should be looking for opportunities to introduce and implement them.
I welcome the attempts that have been made in framing the Bill to have a closer link between the length of sentence passed by the judge and the length of time spent in prison.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is it within the hon. Gentleman's experience that those who tend to default on fines tend also to be the poorest and most disadvantaged in the community? They are often people who are out of work or who suffer from a disability. Very often they are


female single parents. Does that not reinforce the notion that some alternative means should be found so that such people can pay a debt to the community that does not have to be expressed in pounds and pence?

Mr. Clarke: The hon. and learned Gentleman is correct. I hope that the Bill will give us the opportunity to consider what we are doing as a society. Our present response in many instances is to imprison those who experience great poverty, people who in many cases are unable to pay their fines, and ask taxpayers to pay the bill. That seems to be an odd way of going about these matters.
The Secretary of State has suggested that the Bill has three main purposes. He explained that the first purpose is the fundamental reform of the parole system. Secondly, there is the new arrangement for dealing with life sentence prisoners, which will go some way to fulfilling Scotland's obligations under the European convention on human rights. Thirdly, the Bill seeks to make changes to the law of Scotland on criminal evidence and procedure.
I welcome the third purpose of the Bill, which is the change in criminal evidence procedure. I know that in so doing I speak for many of my hon. Friends and not least my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), who has pursued the matter for many years. I hope that he will feel that there is at least some response to his representations as we discuss the Bill.
We are happy with many of the Bill's provisions, which we consider to be welcome developments. Among those that stand out is the use of evidence by live television link. It will be advantageous in a financial sense and in cases where the individual who is giving evidence is under 14 years of age and has been subject to a serious assault, in some cases sexual offences. The presence of the alleged perpetrator of such crimes—we discussed this when we debated the Children Act 1990—is often a horrifying ordeal for a young child. Many psychologists have long advocated the use of a television link or protective screens to protect a young person. Such provision is, thankfully, included in the Bill.
The provisions in clause 2 deal with discretionary life prisoners. The clause introduces new arrangements that go some way to meet obligations to change the law in accordance with the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. I emphasise "some way" because there are aspects of the European court's thinking that we might have taken more meaningfully on board. I am sure that they will he discussed in Committee and when consideration of the Bill returns to the Floor of the House.
There are many issues to be addressed, including parole and the implications that possible changes will have on the activities of social workers. The House will recall that the introduction of parole as we know it stemmed from a Labour party initiative and the conclusions of a study group which was chaired by Long Longford. The study group produced a paper entitled "The Adult Offender", which paved the way for the relevant provisions that appeared in the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
Clause 14 introduces new supervisory release orders for short-term prisoners serving between 12 months and four years. What will the resource implications be—the question has been asked—if there is a dramatic use of such orders? I hope to hear from the Government whether they have allowed for such a use of the orders and have made arrangements accordingly for the necessary resources that will be needed to make such legislation meaningful.
Possibly of even more concern to social workers are the provisions in clauses 11 to 13, which concern the supervision of long-term prisoners and the conditions and duration of their licence. The provisions could produce many difficult and potentially dangerous situations. In reality, hardened and experienced criminals with the most difficult and chaotic lifestyles will be released after they have served two-thirds of their sentence with mandatory supervision, something in which they will be reluctant to participate. Previously, parole was something that prisoners opted into. They were, therefore, willing to participate in it. That did not present the difficulties that we are now addressing.
The longer the sentence the longer will be the supervision period. I shall emphasise the point. Someone who is sentenced to 30 years and who leaves prison after 20 years will remain under supervision for the next 10 years. That is a long period of supervision. Immense difficulties may be encountered and I offer no easy solution, except to encourage adequate funding and support for social workers whose responsibility it is to supervise long-term prisoners.
If the Bill and so much other legislation is to be effective, the role of social workers is crucial. We all know that there are times when social workers feel that they are under attack. They feel that they will be criticised no matter what decision they take and they are aware of their awesome responsibility. I wish, therefore, to go on record as supporting their role and to indicate that the Opposition do not believe, with the best will in the world, that the Bill can be as effective as we wish it to be without the good will that so many social workers have contributed to the system, for which we thank them.
Clause 3 covers the power to release prisoners on compassionate grounds. The clause highlights the important issue of the relevant roles of the judiciary and the Executive. At present, a prisoner who applies to the parole board—the executive for parole, as it were—has no right of appearance, no right of appeal if his application is rejected and no right to be given a reason for the rejection of his application.
Clause 17 covers a short-term, long-term or life prisoner who has been released on licence but has had his licence revoked on the recommendation of the parole board but makes no provision for any form of representation to be made by the prisoner to the parole board on the recall of the licence. This is a concern that has been expressed by the Law Society of Scotland. I am sure that the Secretary of State and his ministerial colleagues will consider that that is a heavyweight view and one that is worthy of a considered response.
If there is a belief in natural justice, parole cases should be heard in an open forum and not in secret. Secrecy allows for accusations that secret justice is being dispensed. I shall use some quotes to elaborate the argument. Rupert Cross, in "Punishment, Prison and the Public", said:
There can be no doubt that the increase in the control of the Executive over the offender after he has been sentenced has been one of the major features of 20th century penal history in this country.
Terrence Morris, in "Deviance and Control", wrote:
The spectre of Executive justice casts deep shadows across the light of freedom under the law … For above all, justice which is done in private must always lie under the suspicion that its reasoning may be arbitrary and instrumental and such as would wither behind closed doors.


Bad behaviour that offends the prison code should be dealt with by prison authorities in the normal way. A criminal act, however, is a matter for the law. The two ought not to be confused, as they often have been under the present system.
Although I am a long-term supporter of advocacy in community care, I have always believed that advisers must be trained and experienced in their individual disciplines. Although the creation of parole advisers is long overdue, and is most welcome, it is essential that they should be properly trained—and clause 21 makes no provision for that. In the debate in the other place, Lord Fraser stated that any long-term establishment would have between one and five advisers, who would be local to the prison and have a previous involvement in it. Will the Secretary of State say who those people will be and whether he will ensure that proper provision is made for their legal training?
Offender services are currently funded by the Scottish Office and regional councils under what has become known as 100 per cent. funding arrangements. I shall be interested to know, as will many agencies, what is the Government's estimate of the number of individuals concerned. One would expect an increase, but the Government's funding intentions are not clear.
If the Government believe that abolishing statutory supervision of 16 to 20-year-olds by social service departments is a quid pro quo in favour of the new system, that presumption may be fundamentally flawed. There are only 600 such cases in Scotland at present, which is far fewer than the expected increase, and suggests only a small potential offset. Those 600 individuals are mainly minor offenders, not hardened criminals.
The Scottish Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders states:
To add the parole requirements contained in this Bill without providing funds for increased staffing levels would make a mockery of implementation.
My experience has provided dreadful evidence of inadequate individuals in prison who ought not to be there. [Laughter.] Despite the response of my hon. Friends, today of all days the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has performed a valuable service. If he succeeds in removing the President of the Board of Trade from office, that is another reason why we should be grateful for his presence this evening.

Mr. Bill Walker: One of my main tasks is to ensure that the hon. Gentleman never gets into office.

Mr. Clarke: Despite my attempt to express a minority view from this side of the House in welcoming the hon. Gentleman, he is not likely to meet with great success. In fact, this afternoon showed that before very long we will be seated on the other side of the House. I look forward to implementing not only the Bill in an improved form but more important legislation.
Many of those who ought not to find themselves in prison are mentally ill or mentally handicapped, and are there only because shelters and other suitable accommodation have been closed and the courts have nowhere else to send them. Such people create petty crimes or create disturbances and are sent to prison, where at least they are looked after and fed.
That is a failing not of the prison system, but of society to make adequate provision for the mentally disturbed and mentally handicapped. I am aware that appropriate training and briefings for prison staff have begun, and hope that they will continue. However, the effect on prison staff must also be considered. They became prison officers to perform a public service in looking after ordinary inmates, but increasingly they are expected to supervise the special categories of prisoners that I mentioned. That is a gross misuse of the prison service's expensive resources, and the important needs of such prisoners in terms of care in the community ought to be met in more civilised ways.
The right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), when Secretary of State for Scotland, wrote:
People should only go to prison when there is no reasonable alternative.
We entirely agree. We thought that was the main thrust of the Bill and of the Government's thinking, as they previously explained it.
It cannot be right that prison staff who have been trained to deal with the problems of individual prisoners should be required to fulfil the role of the medical, hospital, or psychiatric services—yet that is a growing practice.
The Gunn report found that one third of a sample of male prisoners in England and Wales and 59 per cent. of female prisoners suffered some kind of psychiatric disorder. The Guardian commented on that report:
At least one in five sentenced prisoners is thought to have a mental disorder. A study funded by the Home Office and published last October put the incidence as high as 14,000 of the 38,000 sentenced prison population, with 1,100 so ill that they required immediate treatment.
Figures for England are readily available. Does the Secretary of State have comparable figures for Scotland? In the absence of relevant information, neither the House nor the Committee will be able to give the Bill the attention that it deserves, so I invite the Secretary of State to provide it.
Such revelations are extremely worrying to medical staff who seek to serve such prisoners, voluntary organisations, and the families of the individuals in question. In December 1991, the Health Service Journal reported at length on that problem under the headline
Prisoners who know not what they have done.
That there should be such people in prison experiencing enormous difficulties, unable to cope with their environment, and who do not know why they are there, says a lot. Surely there are better ways of dealing with such citizens.
Colin McKay of the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped writes:
There are no adequate alternatives to prison, particularly for people with a mild or moderate handicap who persistently offend … The police have little training in mental handicap and may fail to recognise it or not know what to do about it. There is a Scottish Office circular on interviewing mentally disordered suspects, but it is a long way short of the more rigorous English code of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
Owing to time constraints and the inadequacy of legal aid, defence lawyers may not pick up the fact that a person has a mental handicap. Clearly, we are dispensing with the law in such cases; I am sure that the Secretary of State will take that on board.
It is, and I believe that it always will be, the will of the House that justice should prevail at all times. With that in mind, let me remind the House of the view of the Woolf report:
It is fundamental to the prison service's position as part of the criminal justice system that it should ensure that prisoners are treated with justice in prisons".
I hope that the Bill will make certain that that is done; I also hope, fervently, that the necessary changes will be made in Committee, and I look forward to viewing the Bill at that stage.
My hon. Friends have no desire to obstruct the Bill's progress; quite the reverse. We shall, however, seek to improve it at every stage—if only because of our belief that a radical approach based on a coherent philosophy, incorporating social justice for all prisoners, prison staff and society in general, is pivotal to dealing with many of the problems that currently exist. An efficient and humanitarian criminal justice system can ensure that the needs of society are fully met, and we are determined to achieve that objective.

Mr. George Kynoch: I listened with great interest to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's introduction to this largely technical Bill. In the light of recent statistics relating, for example, to the dramatic increase in the use of firearms in robberies—from 246 cases in 1990 to 440 in 1991, an increase of some 79 per cent.—I welcome some of the parole proposals. Since 1979, there has been a massive 50 per cent. increase in expenditure on the police force, and, in the past three years, £41.4 million has been spent on prison building. It is, however, important to review parole procedure alongside those developments, and I think that the Bill is moving in the right direction.
If the parole system is to succeed, parole should be seen as an outcome that is far from automatic—an outcome that is earned through good behaviour. Proposals to ensure that no prisoner is released having served less than half his sentence are very welcome. I also consider it reasonable to distinguish between prisoners serving sentences longer than four years and those serving sentences shorter than four years, and the placing of emphasis on the recall to prison of those who reoffend on parole is clearly necessary.
With regard to the giving of evidence and the use of technology, I particularly welcome the introduction of pre-trial videos for cases involving children. Children giving evidence go through significant trauma, and anything that we can do to help them must be commended. I also welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that he will seek an amendment in Committee to remove clause 32(5)—I was very surprised when it was introduced in the other place.
Another problem involving evidence does not appear to be covered by the Bill. I believe that it could be covered, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will incorporate the necessary change in Committee. During the recess, I spent an interesting day in the company of Ken Shaw of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, going up Royal Deeside. Throughout my business life, I never observed nature to the extent that I did that day. It was quite an experience, and I was particularly pleased to see a golden eagle: that was, perhaps, my objective.
At one point, the conversation turned to the problems faced by the RSPB, and by nature conservancy organisations, in prosecuting those who contravene laws relating to the protection of wildfowl. I was informed that, in Scotland, the evidence of two witnesses is required to bring about convictions under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981. I believe that they should be permitted on the evidence of a single witness. Under the present law, offenders frequently escape prosecution because their actions have been observed by only one person; that is understandable, given that many such offences occur in largely rural areas in constituencies similar to mine. The RSPB is aware of occasions on which offenders such as egg collectors or persons laying poisoned baits for unlawful predator control have been seen in the process of committing such offences. However, because the offences have tended to occur in remote and thinly populated areas, they have usually been recorded by only one witness. I urge my right hon. Friend and the Government—who have consistently encouraged good stewardship and protection of our rural heritage—to table an amendment or a new clause to the Bill in Committee to close the loophole and bring offenders to book.
As I understand it, the basic principle under Scottish law is that all evidence must be corroborated to be admissible. I believe, however, that various statutes allow conviction on the evidence of a single person, in particular those dealing with the protection of game. For example, section 25(4) of the Deer (Scotland) Act 1959 and section 30(2) of the Salmon Act 1986 permit courts to convict on the evidence of one witness for some of the offences created under those statutes. More recently, the Government have incorporated the single-witness exception in section 87(7) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, admitting single-witness evidence for the offence of dropping litter. There is, therefore, a clear precedent for the conviction of an individual on the basis of one person's evidence—notably, where the circumstances would not allow a conviction otherwise because of the remoteness of the scene of the crime.
Let me give an example, which I believe is still current in my constituency. An amateur field worker, while on his own, came across a failed hen harrier nest. He became suspicious: he could see from the condition of the nest that young had hatched, but they were now absent and he saw no sign of natural predation. Having examined the area closely, he found the bodies of the chicks buried nearby. He removed them, and the matter was duly reported to the local police. Detailed examination showed the bodies to be crushed—damage clearly inconsistent with the behaviour of an animal predator.
A thorough police investigation revealed further alleged offences by an identifiable individual; but, because of a lack of corroboration of the field worker's discoveries, evidence of the serious primary offence can never be put before a court. That is not right.
Another example outwith my constituency but just as relevant occurred earlier this year. An RSPB field worker saw three people—who were known to be egg collectors, all of whom had previous convictions for egg collecting, including several convictions for the taking of golden eagles' eggs in Scotland—rob a golden eagle's nest. Their car was stopped and searched some hours later by the police. They were unaware of any potential incident but they had recognised the men.
No eggs were found, although the climbing equipment that the men used to rob the nest was found in the car. It is, I believe, common practice for egg thieves not to take their booty with them. They hide the stolen eggs near the scene of the crime and return to collect the eggs out of season when they will not arouse suspicion. In view of past experience of attempting to prosecute in these circumstances, the RSPB agreed with the police that further action was pointless, despite the fact that a serious wildlife crime had taken place in full view of a witness.
I do not suggest that the Government should change the law in such a way as to allow an open-ended list of crimes to be included. There should, however, be a clear list of specified offences relating not just to the offence but to the species concerned so as to provide for the protection of those birds that are most at risk. If the Government included such a provision in the Bill, there would be further consistency regarding the protection of all wildlife in our rural habitats.
I am sure that such a provision would not be controversial and that it would be supported by all hon. Members. It is a necessary provision that could be included in the Bill as a means of tidying up the law relating to witnesses' evidence. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland seriously to consider moving an amendment or a new clause in Committee in order to bring that about.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: The hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) has raised the issue of corroboration regarding the protection of birds. Like other hon. Members, I have received briefing material, if one may so describe it. The difficulty inherent in the hon. Gentleman's proposal is that it is easy to make a special case, but every time that one makes a special case arguing for relaxation of the principle of corroboration in the law of Scotland, it is much easier on a subsequent occasion—perhaps less deserving—for another exception to be made. The hon. Gentleman referred to admissibility as though that were the same as corroboration, but he is mistaken. Evidence may be admissible, but there may be insufficient of it—that is, it is insufficiently corroborated—to justify a conviction.
The Committee may consider the hon. Gentleman's proposals in some detail, but I have an inherent reservation about the notion that the law of corroboration can simply be set aside whenever circumstances arise that appear, prima facie at least, to justify it. I well remember a debate in the House when a substantial review was made of the law of corroboration in civil actions. If I am not mistaken, the Minister who is to reply to this debate, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton)—replied on that occasion. To some extent because of the prompting of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), he reiterated strongly the Government's commitment to the notion of corroboration in criminal cases. I hope that this evening he will once again say that the Government are committed to that principle, while not entirely setting aside the apparently persuasive arguments of the hon. Gentleman.
I believe, like the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman), that the Bill might well have been an obvious candidate for consideration by a Special Standing Committee. When I read the Bill in detail, I thought that if ever there were a compelling argument for the devolution of legislative power to Edinburgh, it rested in the terms of this Bill. These are exactly the matters that ought to be considered by a Scottish Parliament sitting in Edinburgh. They trench upon the nature of the administration of an important part of the Government's activities in Scotland. They could much more effectively and efficiently be dealt with in a legislature with delegated power, rather than here at Westminster.

Dr. Godman: I agree with everything that the hon. and learned Gentleman says about a Scottish Parliament. One reason why I suggested that the Bill should be considered by a Special Standing Committee was that we appear to be leapfrogging the English and Welsh legislation in terms of child care law reform. That, surely, is helpful for children on both sides of the border.

Mr. Campbell: The hon. Gentleman, who has a distinguished record in the policy area to which he just referred, makes a powerful point, but, in the context of the Bill, some of the changes that it seeks to effect have been part of the legislative framework of England and Wales for a considerable time.
The tribute paid to the Kincraig committee was entirely justified. Lord Kincraig was a distinguished member of the Scottish Bench. He was Dean of the Faculty of Advocates. He came to the task that was allotted to him with a great deal of experience. He discharged that task very competently. His report, although it may not justify the description that it was a model of its kind, none the less ensured that our debate today is much better informed than it might have been.
Early release—for that is what we must now call it—is an essential part of the penal system. It recognises the possibility of reform. By its very existence it contributes to prison discipline and it will almost certainly have an influence on the nature of a prison regime. The issues with which we are concerned, as the two opening speeches made clear, are complicated in practice. It is significant that to some extent the speeches that have already been made had about them a Committee stage rather than a Second Reading flavour. I hope, however, that hon. Members will not regard this as lawyers' work. There is wide public interest in the way in which we deal with those who commit offences.
The numbers are relatively small. The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said there were 5,500 people in prison, but any member of society may at any time find himself and, increasingly, herself propelled into the penal system. Public interest is, therefore, significant. We must endeavour to achieve a balance in which society properly reflects its distaste and condemnation of conduct that is contrary to the best interests of society while at the same time ensuring that the interests of those who are convicted and find themselves in custody are properly protected.
That is a difficult balance to justify. It is not always assisted by florid assertions that people who are sent to prison enjoy a good life. Hardly a Christmas goes past without a tabloid newspaper describing the pleasures that are enjoyed by those who happen to be in prison at that


time. I doubt very much whether the reporters who write these stories with such enthusiasm would willingly swap their own celebrations of the day for those enjoyed by people who are in Barlinnie prison or Saughton.
As I acknowledged in response to the intervention of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, experience in England has been different because of its different legislative framework. In 1987, 57.3 per cent. of those eligible were admitted to early release, whereas in Scotland the figure was only 28.4 per cent. The systems are different, but perhaps that shows that there is more sensitivity in England, to which we hope the Bill will direct us.
In the other place, when dealing with discretionary life sentences under clause 2, following the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, to which the Secretary of State referred in his opening remarks, the noble Lord Advocate said—I think that the Secretary of State confirmed this—that the parole board was to act as a court. I asked the Secretary of State whether that was to be confined to its jurisdiction for clause 2 cases or whether it was to have wider significance. I hope that I do not do the Secretary of State an injustice, but it seems that he did not quite grasp my point. I understood him to say that the authority to establish the parole board as a court was to be found under clause 20. I think that is what I heard; if I am wrong, I stand corrected. I have read the clause with some care and find it difficult to see how the authority to establish the parole board as a court is to be derived from it. The noble Lord Advocate appeared to accept that that would require subordinate legislation.
There will be substantial questions about how the board operates, such as whether it will have rules that are to be published, by what form of subordinate legislation it will fall to be established and, perhaps more significantly, whether those who find themselves appearing before it will be eligible for legal aid. My reading of the legal aid scheme is that legal aid will not be available unless a specific amendment is made for that purpose.
Establishing the parole board as a court, even for the limited purpose of clause 2, carries substantial implications, which will have to be investigated in Committee.

Mr. James Wallace: If the board is constituted as a court, what appeal rights will flow to those who are not satisfied with its findings? Would an appeal be made automatically to the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh? This may be a good proposal, but I am sure that my hon. and learned Friend agrees that it needs to be fleshed out more.

Mr. Campbell: If I may respectfully say so, my hon. Friend's suggestion about the High Court of Justiciary is inept. He has been away from practise at the Bar for some years. As an appeal would be probably of the nature of a civil appeal, it would go to the Court of Session. I suspect that the right to judicial review will be available under the normal rules of our law in Scotland, unless some express appeal provision is to be provided. My hon. Friend's intervention serves only to underline the uncertainty, which will have to be investigated in Committee.
There was some controversy in the other place about clause 23. When the matter was raised, substantially by Lord Macaulay of Bragar, to whom reference has already been made, the noble Lord Fraser was at some pains to say that it was likely to he used only for a temporary purpose.

The clause provides that in certain circumstances an offender who should be detained in a young offenders' institution—a specialised institution designed to deal expressly with young offenders—might find himself or herself transferred to prison or a remand centre. I imagine that a remand centre has a less rigorous regime than a young offenders' institution, so in that respect the individual might not suffer any damage, but to transfer a person who should be in a young offenders' institution to a prison represents a substantial difference in the nature of custodial treatment. Therefore, we shall have to consider carefully the protection that is available to people who may find themselves dealt with in this way. It would be a tragedy, to put it perhaps over-strongly, if someone of that category were to find himself or herself transferred to a prison for some administrative purpose or administrative convenience. The issues involved are obviously significant.
Clause 24 deals with what one might describe as governors' punishment. When that was being debated in the other place, the noble Lord Fraser said that changes in procedure were being contemplated as a result of an internal inquiry in the prison service. I hope that the results of the inquiry will be made available to us, because I have always felt some discomfort about the notion of governors' punishment. One is entitled to feel some discomfort about internal procedures, and I can say from such limited association as I have had with those who have been subject to it—always in a professional capacity—that there is great resentment about the nature of that punishment. I suppose that it is equivalent to service life where one takes the commanding officers' punishment, but many inmates resent the way in which it is administered.
I voted against the War Crimes Bill every time it came before the House, for reasons which I think were clear at the time. There was an issue of principle, and some took one view of that principle and others took a different view. I agree with the view expressed by the Secretary of State that it sits uneasily in our legal system to have an amendment of the nature of clause 32(5). The House determined against the position that I took, but that seems to be no justification, however strongly people may have felt in the other place, for including an amendment relating to crime of a very narrow category. I understand the motives for doing so, but I do not believe that it is right to have evidential procedures that vary from crime to crime. Like the issue of removing the need for corroboration, it will always be possible to make a special case, and every time one does so the general principle will be weakened and diluted. Therefore, if the Government's proposal is to remove that provision from the Bill, I certainly will not oppose it.
I should like to draw the Minister's attention to what appears to be an error in clauses 6 and 7. It may simply be a misprint, but clause 6(2) provides that
a child detained without limit of time under section 206 of the 1975 Act may, on the recommendation of the Parole Board made at any time, be released on licence by the Secretary of State.
Section 206 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 provides not for detention without limit of time but for detention for a period which shall be "specified in the sentence". It appears to me that section 206 has been inserted, not section 205. Section 205(2) of the principal Act refers to people being detained without limit of time. On the face of it, it appears that there has been a misprint in clause 6. If I am wrong—I have no doubt that the


Minister has available to him resources which will enable him to determine whether I am right or wrong—obviously I will withdraw my remarks, but it appears that there has been an error of some kind.
We know, because the Secretary of State has told us and indeed careful perusal of the legislation makes it clear, that the right to what we must now call early release is to be available to children under 18 who may be convicted of murder or children who might not have been convicted of murder but who have been sentenced to a specified term under section 206 to which I have already referred. The Minister will know, because, along with a former Member, Mr. Dick Douglas, we had a very productive meeting at which we discussed the position of children convicted of murder. As a result of that meeting, the Minister was most constructive, and certain changes were made as a result of our representations on the way in which those children were cared for within the system.
There may be cases in which not to allow the early release of a child necessarily ensures that that child will graduate through the penal system, first from the place to which the child was sent as a result of the Secretary of State's direction, then to the young offenders' institution and then to prison. Anyone who knows about penal institutions knows that there is a sense of graduation and that part of the difficulty in ensuring that reform is a central part of penal policy is the fact that the mere association with criminals and those of criminal propensity is enough quite often to inform people about the best and most effective ways of committing some crimes.
It is often said that people learn how to open motor cars without keys because they happen to find themselves in a cell with someone else who has made a habit of doing that. The example that I used is perhaps not profound, but there is a more important principle to be found—that is, if it is possible to release a child without prejudice to the safety of the public before that individual has to go to the young offenders' institution or has to go to prison, that opportunity should be taken. To send the individual through the whole system is to expose him or her to the risk that he or she will acquire the institutionalisation which obviously goes with such a length of time spent in an institution and also an experience of crime by association with criminals which will make it difficult for him or her to adhere to the path of reform.
The next matter is not raised by the Bill but I hope that the Committee will be able to consider it in the form of a new clause. The Bill mentions mandatory life sentences for certain crimes, and indeed for the crime of murder. It is time to look again at that provision in our law. It would be radical in Scotland, and to that extent, picking up the point of the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow, we might put ourselves ahead of England and Wales. My professional experience has led me to believe that the range of culpability in the crime of murder is considerable. There are often cases in which the boundary between murder and what we in Scotland call culpable homicide is very narrow indeed, yet if a case falls on one side of that border, however narrowly, the trial judge has no discretion: he is obliged to send the person to prison for life. That point has arisen not yet controversially in

Scotland, but it has arisen in the context of the arguments principally in England and Wales about the defence of provocation.
It is clear that there have been circumstances in which English juries have been unwilling to accept—for instance, with regard to domestic murders when a woman has killed her husband—that provocation can be established by a course of conduct over a long period. There has been strict adherence, even in the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords, to the notion that provocation necessarily involves some heat of the blood or a sudden response under the pressure of the provocative behaviour.
There are grave difficulties in attempting to change the law of provocation because of a range of issues with which we need not concern ourselves today. However, if, instead of a mandatory life sentence, we had the ability or the discretion to impose a sentence of any duration, the difficulties presently caused by the controversy over provocation might be substantially reduced. In essence, the distinction between culpable homicide in Scotland, which is the equivalent of manslaughter in England and Wales, and murder should be withdrawn and we should have a single crime, the crime of homicide, and in respect of the crime of homicide the High Court of Justiciary, the supreme criminal court in Scotland, should have the right, as it already has, to sentence a person to any sentence that it considers fit.
If that were so, the fine gradation which sometimes appears where life is taken as between culpable homicide and murder would be of no significance. Also, if that were the case, a judge could properly reflect in the sentence which he gave the extent to which he believed that a long course of conduct may have contributed to the act which culminated in a woman taking the life of her husband, for example. I hope that we will be able to discuss that issue in the form of a new clause in Committee. There was a Select Committee on this matter in the other place, and its deliberations might be of assistance.
With a Bill of this kind, one's speech necessarily has to consist of taking pieces from here and there, because there is no central theme other than that the law of Scotland should, as far as possible, be brought up to date, that we should deal with those who offend and who are convicted in a way that is consistent with justice and that we should continue to find measures that will adequately protect the public. The Bill gives us all those opportunities. The precise detail of how those opportunities can be achieved is obviously a matter for the Committee, but I am pleased—delighted, even—that the Government have found time to bring forward a measure which will allow for detailed consideration of several matters which the sceptics around me believe are to be regarded only as a stocking filler at Christmas. Whether that is so I do not know, but the Bill offers an opportunity for detailed consideration of several important matters, the determination of which will be an important measure of how a civilised society deals with those who offend.

Mr. Phil Gallie: I congratulate the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) on his promotion to the Opposition Front Bench. I also record my appreciation of his predecessor, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), for whom I have gained much respect in the short time that I have been in this place.
However, I am slightly disappointed. I had hoped that the hon. Member for Garscadden would serve in that position for many years to come. In any case, I welcome the hon. Member for Monklands, West. I am rather disappointed that no members of the Scottish National party have been present to consider such an important Bill. That is quite suprising.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West criticised the Government for following the English. Not too long ago, there was great criticism by Scottish Opposition Members of the Government when Scotland led and England had to follow. The Opposition should make up their minds about what they really want. I believe in Scotland leading and I do not apologise for that.
The Bill will be addressed line by line in Committee. It is a very detailed Bill and I want to set out a background that is very different from the comments which have been made so far in the Chamber. Because of other happenings in recent weeks, the media have lost sight of the Bill and its importance to the Scottish public. However, the public have not lost sight of the importance of law and order issues.
The public at large have grave concerns about law and order. The incidence of violent crime is rising and I believe that the steps which have been taken so far have done little to address the situation. To a degree, the Bill has failed to address those points. When the public consider the details of the Bill, they will raise even greater concerns.
I want to relate law and order matters to my constituency of Ayr. Over the past eight months, there have been four deaths as a result of violence in my constituency. They were horrific deaths. Three of those deaths involved young people who were going about lawful leisure pursuits. One middle-aged woman was murdered in her own home. That is frightening and it raises grave concerns in the mind of the public at large, particularly the elderly.
Ayr is not alone. From what I am led to believe, in the past eight months of this year there were 68 murders in Strathclyde. Over a similar period in Northern Ireland, there were 54 murders and Northern Ireland is in a state of emergency.
I must emphasise that the problems that we face in Ayr in relation to law and order are not unique. Ayr is not a no-go area. However, problems tend to arise late at night and at weekends. I am pleased to say that the new Conservative administration of Kyle and Carrick district council has attempted to address the situation in part, as far as opportunities allow, in tandem with the licence trade. There is a move towards a reduction in late licences.

Dr. Godman: With regard to the growing incidence of violent crimes, many of which take place late at night and at weekends as the hon. Gentleman suggested, is it not absolutely stupid to reduce the ambulance cover in our constituencies in the west of Scotland at those times and at the weekends? Should we not have a comprehensive and adequate ambulance cover at such times?

Mr. Gallie rose: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) continues, I hope that he will not be led down some byway far from the Bill.

Mr. Gallie: I take your point, Madam Deputy Speaker. However, I believe that it would be in order for me to answer the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman). I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I have had no complaints about a lack of ambulance services in my constituency. However, I have received complaints about a lack of a police presence and I will address that point shortly.
Although a reduction in late licences may do something about the present situation and alleviate the problem a little, it will not solve the whole problem. We have a problem with youths who carry weapons. However, we cannot relate that to late licensing hours. Youths arm themselves when they are stone cold sober. They obtain weapons long before the pubs close. Indeed, they obtain them long before they go to the pubs. There is a problem there and——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has a more immediate problem and that is to relate what he is saying to the Bill.

Mr. Gallie: With the greatest respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, I believe that the Bill addresses law and order matters which are of vital concern to my constituents who are suffering at the hands of people who are now in prison. The intention of the Bill is to reduce the number of people in prisons and to put people back on to the streets at an earlier stage. I believe that my points are very relevant to that issue.
I want now to consider the number of police on the streets of Ayr and to emphasise the difficulties that they have in apprehending criminals and solving crimes. I point to the——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have tried to be gentle with the hon. Gentleman. However, I must make it clear to him that he must relate his remarks to the Second Reading of the Bill. This is not a general debate on law and order.

Mr. Gallie: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have some difficulty because I intended to cover the issues in a wider context. I understand that the Committee will take a line-by-line approach on such matters. Having said that, I am obliged to take note of the Chair's comments and I will attempt to confine myself to the Bill as closely as I can.
In doing that, I must point to the reasons why people are imprisoned. Why are they there? They are in prison because they have committed misdemeanours, sinned against society and because their crimes have created problems in society.

Mr. John McAllion: Why are you here?

Mr. Gallie: I am here because the people of Ayr had the good sense to elect a Conservative Member who stood for the Union and I am grateful to them.
I hope, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you will show me some indulgence if I address one aspect of the present situation—the crime of housebreaking. Given the way in which housebreaking is treated in the courts, I believe that there is a problem. Housebreaking is treated in a manner which does not recognise the full implications of its effect on society.
Housebreaking can be a violation. It gets into the hearts and minds of the people against whom such deeds have


been perpetrated. There must surely be lengthy custodial sentences imposed on those who carry out such deeds. I believe that that does not happen at the moment. If the Bill were to be implemented, the situation for those who ultimately find their way into a custodial situation would be worsened because release would come sooner and the police would have greater problems.
When I consider housebreaking, I think of the pain and anguish that is suffered principally, once again, by the elderly. I have sat in courts recently and witnessed the sentencing policy of various sheriffs. It is unusual that a custodial sentence is passed for housebreaking. I am led to believe that it takes about 14 convictions before someone is put behind prison walls. I feel that much consideration is given to the minds and hearts of prisoners before such a step is taken. It would be entirely wrong to reduce the sentences given to such people in an effort rationally to reduce the number of custodial sentences.
I have to confess that in some matters I shall perhaps require your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has already required it.

Mr. Gallie: I beg your pardon, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman should sit when I stand. I was making the passing observation that the hon. Gentleman has had his full ration of indulgence. He should now stick to the Bill or sit down.

Mr. Gallie: As far as I am aware, it is possible to recommend to the Secretary of State and the Minister measures which could be added to the Bill. I suggest that my hon. Friend the Minister should consider the Conservative party manifesto pledge to give the prosecution the right of appeal against lenient sentences. Here we have an opportunity to inject that measure into a criminal proceedings Bill.
What does the Bill offer? It offers a means of reducing time spent in prison by short-term, long-term and life prisoners. I agree that prisoners must have an incentive, but I suggest that when the public hear that in future 12-year sentences will be six-year sentences, questions will be asked and will have to be answered.
I welcome the proposals in the Bill on supervision. Supervision is integral to the good management of the proposals that are on the table. However, I must ask: what is the purpose of imprisonment? We must not forget the punishment element. However, I also acknowledge the treatment aspect, which the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) highlighted. I do not demur, but the all-important point is that prisons exist to protect the public. That must be the first priority. Both actual and potential victims of crime must be the first priority.
I noted the comments of the hon. Member for Monklands, West on the rights of prisoners. I remind my hon. Friend the Minister that the rights of the public at large must be his first consideration. There is cause for close scrutiny and amendment of the Bill in Committee. I look forward to participating in that. Part II of the Bill certainly has much to commend it. For example, it

increases police powers to a degree. I welcome the use of DNA tests and, above all, the changes in the procedures when children give evidence. They are of great value.
I also welcome the reduction in the need for witnesses to appear in court. That in itself has much to offer. The changes involving live television transmissions must be supported and welcomed by all hon. Members. They can help the cause of justice. The measures in part II give me good reason to support the Second Reading.
I welcome the comments by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on clause 32. He has suggested a vital amendment which I feel that the whole House will welcome.

Mr. Ian Davidson: I rise as the new Member of Parliament for Glasgow, Govan to speak for the first time, having spent a period listening to and watching the behaviour of the House with some interest. I recognise that becoming a Member of Parliament is a considerable transition from being a big fish in a small pool in local goverment—even though that pool is perhaps too large for some who are presently engaged in filling bits of it in and breaking the rest up into puddles. It is a difficult transition. I hope that I shall be able to manage it with the success that many of my predecessors from local government, especially on this side of the House, have managed it.
I should like to start by speaking briefly about my constituency. It has to be recognised that it is not homogeneous but is composed of a variety of villages and communities, each of which has its own local pride and characteristics and many of which fiercely argue for recognition in their own right. It is certainly my intention to ensure that I do that as their local Member of Parliament.
My constituency ranges from the very worst of underfunded public sector housing to the very best that Scotland has to offer. I shall turn to that subject in a moment. Govan is a community with which many people have a connection. There are Govanites in all worlds, ranging from sport and entertainment to the professions and industry. All those worlds have Govanites in prominent positions, to the advantage of all concerned.
I have met senior officers and Members of Parliament here who also have Govan connections. In particular, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) and my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) were at one time residents of Govan constituency. I believe that the hon. Member for Eastwood lived for some considerable time in the leafy suburb of Dumbreck before realising that it was not part of the Eastwood constituency. His subsequent move outwards shows the clear link that Govan has with its hinterland. That is why, as part of the local government reorganisation, consideration should be given to the recreation of the burgh of Govan in an expanded form, initially perhaps to include Govan, Pollok and Eastwood. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Eastwood is nodding. Already, G division of the police covers the area that I have mentioned. Indeed, the social work boundary is the same. So the recreation of the burgh is obviously worthy of consideration.
My area has suffered considerably from economic restructuring. It is now in the process of lifting itself up,


reforming and regenerating work for its people. It has recently had such successes as the Govan garden festival, which was visited by many Members of Parliament. The Mod has been held in Govan and was a great success. Govan Shipbuilders has been reborn. Many hon. Members will he aware of the great work undertaken by the Govan Initiative—a partnership of the local authorities and the private sector, with co-operation, which I recognise, from central Government. The Initiative has done so much to create jobs in that community. Of course, many hon. Members will be aware of the activities and successes of Govan Rangers.
Down the motorway a little distance is an airport which was built by the product of the merger of the burgh of Govan and Glasgow. That reorganisation resulted in a unity known as Glasgow. Therefore, the airport was named Glasgow airport. It seems relevant to me and to my constituents to say that, under the reorganisation, it should be renamed Govan airport, and the former small burghs within the Govan travel-to-work area should be drawn in as part of the greater Govan co-prosperity sphere. In that context, I am referring to Paisley and Renfrew, which would fit well into a new greater Govan area.
Given that we are taking in the constituency of the Member for Eastwood, it would seem appropriate that Linwood, the home of the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde, whom I also mentioned, should be drawn into the area too.
Having reorganised local government, I must make it clear that I have no further territorial demands at present and must move on to the history of the area. Many hon. Members here will be aware that at various times part or all of my constituency has been represented by nationalist Members, but it is not nearly as well known that in the not-too-distant past parts of it were represented by Conservative Members.
Some parts of my constituency were also represented by Conservative councillors in the not-too-distant past, and it is difficult for me and for many of my constituents to understand why the Conservatives have not managed to put up a candidate in the regional council by-election, which is being held a week on Thursday, after similarly failing to put up a candidate in the previous council elections in the Moss Park ward of my constituency. That shows how low the Tories have sunk in that area. Having previously held sway there, they are no longer able to put up someone for office. I am not certain whether that is simply incompetence or whether they intend to seek anti-Labour votes for the nationalist candidate. It would not be the first time that there had been such a dialogue between those two parties to attack the Labour party. Each needs the other in a symbiotic relationship designed to oppose Labour. I condemn that cynical alliance, and I am sure that many of my colleagues do likewise.
The previous Member for whom I have the greatest respect served the constituency for what seemed a considerable time but was, upon reflection, too short. His style and manner may have led some to underestimate a formidable intellect, one consistently applied in the interests of his constituents and his party. Now, as we all know, he has gone to work mainly abroad, where he continues to make a valuable contribution to the common good. I and his former constituents hold him in the highest possible regard. My only regret is that time does not allow me further to sing the praises of Bruce Milian.
My immediate predecessor also must command respect for his achievements. I have checked with the Library, which is unable to find any other Member in the recent past who played such a prominent role in three parties. I did not count Members who changed back to a party again or Liberals, with their various name changes. His is an achievement perhaps equalled but never surpassed. It was particularly noticeable that he was in the leadership of the Labour party when he left, went on to be the leader of the Scottish Labour party and was well on the way to being the leader of his third party before he left the House. He was a man of strong views. Even though the direction of those views changed from time to time, he none the less brought a fervour and passion of argument which was undiminished by the passage of time and which will be recognised by all here.
My predecessor was fortunate in his choice of staff in the constituency who worked hard on the caseload which is such an important part of the work of a Member of Parliament. I and those that they help would not want this opportunity to pass without recognising publicly the sterling work that the staff of the previous Member undertook on behalf of people in the area. I think my predecessor made a contribution to Scottish politics which should not be underestimated or overlooked even by those who disagree with his content or style, or both.
On a personal note, may I say how much I owe to my father Graham, my mother Betty, my sister Moira, my wife Morag and my son and daughter, Colin and Christine. They have given me invaluable support, and without it I do not believe that I would be here today. One person outside my family helped me a great deal, more than they know—a former teacher of Galashiels Academy, who was politically active in the Liberal party. She was a teacher of modern studies who demonstrated to me teaching at its best. Isabel Hilton was able to communicate constructively and positively to young minds—minds developing but barely formed—a wider vision of society and of what was possible which left a lasting impact on me and on many of my colleagues. I pay tribute to her for the way in which she was able to open up in an unpartisan manner the world of politics to many of her young charges.
I am grateful to the Co-operative party for the support that it gave me before, during and after the election. On behalf of many new Members, I must say how grateful we are for the large and small kindnesses that we have received from the more experienced Members, who could perhaps be referred to in this context as old lags.
I am conscious of the fact that if a new Member speaks for more than 10 minutes he might not get to speak again for the next 20 years. I have been a Member for relatively few months, and, like many new Members, I came here with high hopes only to have many of them dashed. Like many new Labour Members, I started with a sense of achievement, having won the first vote in which I participated, only to find that things went gradually downhill from then on, as we have managed to win only one vote since. That has convinced me of the need for a fairer voting system—one that allows us to win on a number of occasions. I hope to participate in such an experience later this week.
I look forward to participating fully in further debates on a variety of issues that concern my constituents and my area, and I hope to carry my party's flag forward in a number of areas.
On the subject of the present debate, the solution to crime lies not with procedural alterations, worthy though some may be, but with economic recovery and an end to the hopelessness that drives so many of our people into crime. The Government have presided over an explosion in crime in the past few years, and I hope that they will soon propose to do something positive about it.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose——

Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr. Walker.

Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not wish to introduce a carping note into tonight's civilised proceedings, but why have you called the hon. Gentleman? He has not been here for the past hour.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is a matter for the discretion of the Chair, and I have exercised it in that way.

Mr. Walker: I was about to apologise to the House for the fact that I have been in and out of the Chamber during the debate. It is wrong to say that I have not been here for the past hour. I can tell exactly when I went out, because I went to one of the many interviews that I have been involved in due to today's circumstances.
I am sorry that I did not hear all of his speech, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan, (Mr. Davidson). I suppose that I would really like to tell him how delighted I am to see him sitting there representing Govan. We enjoyed the outcome of his election, but, more importantly, the House looks forward to hearing what he has to say because he spoke with the conviction that comes from experience. I am sure that his contributions on Scottish and other matters will be welcomed by Members on both sides of the House.
The Bill is important and, although it will not be controversial, it will nevertheless arouse disagreement and individuals will see some aspects of it differently. I have always taken the simple view of life: people who transgress should be made to repay their debt to society. However, it is difficult in any circumstances to get the balance right. Some people feel that often the sentences are too draconian, and others feel that they do not fit the crime.
Much of the Bill deals with the subject of parole. There is always uncertainty when someone is released before completing his or her sentence, particularly if there is a further transgression. The fact that some people transgress—they always will—is no reason for saying that we should do away with the measure completely. The Government are trying to get the balance right.
As the House knows, the Bill is the result of the Kincraig report. As the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said—I notice that he has left the Chamber and I make no observation other than to say that hon. Members go in and out of the Chamber all the time—not all aspects of the Kincraig recommendations have been implemented. It would have been surprising if they had because Governments rarely implement everything contained in learned reports.
I am particularly concerned about the amendments that were made in the other place regarding war criminals and the question of audio and video evidence and records. I

hope that when we examine the Bill in detail in Committee we shall be able to remove that large amendment so that the will of the House of Commons can be carried in the Scottish Committee. Although we in Scotland cherish and guard the fact that we have a separate legal system and way of bringing in laws, we think that some matters should be common throughout the United Kingdom. Such matters, in which the public at large are interested, are important. Although I have always doubted whether many prosecutions would be brought under the war crimes procedure, we are dealing with principles rather than with the practice of what is likely to happen.

Dr. Godman: May I point out that the Secretary of State appears to intend to remove that part of the Bill on Report?

Mr. Walker: If my right hon. Friend has said that he will do that, I accept that he will do it. One of the great advantages of being a Secretary of State is that one can get things done, but that does not stop me commenting on the matter. The hon. Gentleman will also want to comment and make observations on it when he has the opportunity as the debate continues.
We shall probably spend most of our time debating the release of prisoners. An amendment was tabled in the other place about prisoners being released for health, exceptional and compassionate reasons. I was interested to see that Lord Fraser of Carmyllie said that the Government had
no intention of penalising a short-term prisoner released on compassionate grounds if, for example, he unexpectedly recovers his health."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 2 June 1992; Vol. 537, c. 870.]
One thinks of people like Ernest Saunders, who has made a dramatic recovery from allegedly being nearly senile. He did terrible damage to the City of London and the Scotch whisky industry's interests. I happen to think that the Scotch whisky industry is in better shape today to face the problems of the world than it was before Ernest Saunders came on the scene. I was deeply involved in matters affecting the whisky takeovers. Nevertheless, we must be careful in examining the recovery in prisoners' health. That is the best example that I can give of someone released on health grounds because he was, according to medical evidence, in a state of senile dementia. I hope that I go through that situation many times in my life so that I may experience longevity and recover as Ernest Saunders has.
I draw attention to that case because, when we have an opportunity in Committee to debate these matters in depth, I hope that we shall recognise that it is difficult to get the balance right. I understand the difficulties in attempting to get it right, but we must always take on board the public's response and reactions. The public will often respond to circumstances and then forget about them tomorrow because something else has come along, so one must not simply change the law to meet the fads of today. If we are to make fundamental changes in how we deal with prisoners, we must ensure that those changes will have the public's confidence. We should not make changes simply to be seen to be fashionable or faddy.
I am interested in the fact that prisoners serving sentences of less than four years will be automatically released halfway through their sentence instead of at two


thirds, as at present. It is right that prisoners should be released only if they have been well behaved while in prison.
I no longer have a prison in my constituency, but before the boundary changes of 1983 Perth prison was in my constituency. I was a regular visitor to Perth prison and it always struck me—[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) wish to intervene?

Mr. Hood: No.

Mr. Walker: I thought that the hon. Gentleman wanted to have his say.
Like so many prisons of that period, Perth prison is a ghastly place. It is one of the most appalling places imaginable in which to lock up people. If there are benefits to prisoners and society by releasing people from their sentence earlier, I would support that. But I need to be convinced—I am always ready to be convinced—that the sentence passed by the court at the time of the offence is seen and accepted by the public as fitting the crime.
The big problem is not the parole aspect, which is a proper, humane way to deal with people who have transgressed. The question is: are the courts passing sentences that the public believe fit the crime? Too often that is not the case and too many sentences are seen not to fit the crime. I am sure that every hon. Member has been approached when a television programme reports a ghastly occurrence involving a child who has been molested or killed and the sentence does not seem to fit the crime. I accept that in all cases all the evidence must be heard in order to understand why sentences are passed.
One aspect that was long overdue was the change in the law made in England and Wales so that the Crown could appeal against a sentence that it thought to be too light. Such checks and balances are important. I hope that, in dealing with the Bill—which is, after all, entitled the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill—we shall have the opportunity in Committee to examine the way in which sentences are passed. It is not just a matter of ensuring that someone is released after he or she has served half of a sentence. The issue is whether a four-year sentence is such as to give the public confidence in our court procedures.
I shall now consider the principle behind the parole system. It is right to have a system that allows for a selective approach to the release of long-term prisoners. That is essential. But equally, whatever system is introduced following the Bill's passage, the public must be convinced that the rules do not allow the release of prisoners who should be kept locked up.
There are some prisoners who should never be allowed out, but they are not in the majority. One must recognise that they are in the minority. However, the important aspect of any parole system must be how one examines the candidates who are up for parole and considers in depth why they were incarcerated in the first place. In addition, a decision must be taken on whether those individuals have records of incarceration for offences that make it unlikely that they will ever return into society as responsible citizens.
I suspect that most of the controversy in future will arise over discretionary life prisoners and periodic reviews. There is no doubt that some people should never be returned to society. There were such prisoners in Perth prison when I used to visit. I shall not name them as their

names are known to everyone. They have been incarcerated not only for crimes committed when they were in the public domain, but for crimes committed subsequently, including the capital crime of murder. Such individuals should never be released. Anyone who commits a capital crime while still a prisoner has completely negated the possibility of a civilised society considering him or her for release. We must consider that aspect, how we deal with it, and the issue of periodic reviews.
From time to time almost all hon. Members receive correspondence from people who have been incarcerated. There are genuine cases in which mistakes have been made. We must recognise that we live in an imperfect world. The law, as with anything to do with man, is imperfect. Mistakes can happen, and we must bear that in mind when considering the release of prisoners and reviewing why they were locked up in the first place.
I believe that it is easier to keep youngsters good than to make bad ones good. I have held that view all my adult life, which is why I have tried to make a small contribution to youth work and activities. I have been asked a number of times why I seem more interested in air cadets and boy scouts than offenders. The answer is that if one keeps good youngsters active and involved in organisations that turn them into good citizens, there is a better chance that they will grow up into good citizens.
We spend far too much of our time looking at defaulters—to use an old military term—than good youngsters, of whom there are many more than there are bad ones. We should spend more time considering ways of keeping good youngsters good, which is important when considering young offenders. Young people often drift into offending because it is a peer activity. If someone grows up in circumstances in which anybody else's property is fair game, it is not surprising that he or she has difficulty in making judgments on the difference between right and wrong.
One of the great mistakes that we have made in the post-war period is progressively to drift away from understanding the difference between right and wrong. That is probably due to trendy ideas in education and the breakdown of the normal family unit. We shall be faced with more and more problems that are the direct result of the breakdown of the family unit and the inadequacies of education. Youngsters are unable to cope with situations because they are affected by occurrences in school and at home.
The Bill is not the sort of measure to excite people outside. The only people who will send us representations will be interested groups, not the public; that has been my experience so far. We shall not receive many brownie points from constituents for the time that we spend in Committee or on Second Reading. We shall be lucky to get any mention in the Scottish media for our activities this evening, although this is an important Bill covering wide aspects of discretion and the law.
I was interested in the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) on transgressions against wildlife. We have adjoining constituencies: Kincardine and Deeside joins my constituency at Glen Shee, where my daughters were ski-ing at the weekend. I cannot remember when they last went ski-ing in October. My hon. Friend and I know that one of the great difficulties in large rural constituencies


involves people who transgress miles away from habitation. I look forward to his moving his amendments and the debates that we shall have on them in Committee.
Although it is probably true that most offences occur in urban areas, we also have problems in rural areas, and it is time they were dealt with properly. The preamble to this Bill makes one realise that it ranges fairly widely, so there will be opportunities to table a number of amendments that should be in order——

Mr. Hood: Stop filibustering.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman should know that I table amendments to most Bills.

Mr. Hood: It sounded to me as though the hon. Gentleman was filibustering. Indeed, I have lost track of the part of the Bill that he is discussing. That is all; it just crossed my mind.

Mr. Walker: The hon. Gentleman suggested earlier that I had not been here for the debate. I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside speaking about the problems of a lack of corroboration. I was merely saying that I shall welcome the chance in Committee to debate the amendments that my hon. Friend will propose to deal with that problem. That shows clearly that I have been here listening to some of the speeches.
Because others wish to make speeches longer than mine, I am happy at this stage to sit down and await the continued debate in Committee—and I can say with certainty that I will be on that Committee.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: I apologise to the House for missing the Front-Bench speeches. Unfortunately, I had to attend an important meeting about today's statement.
I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State in his place—the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton). I was grateful for his support some years ago when I dealt in a private Member's Bill with problems of under-age drinking.
I welcome some of the measures in the Bill; I just hope that the Minister will not lose sight of the great need for legislation to protect our young kids who are getting hooked on booze. The evidence from the good work that the Minister helped me with two or three years ago points to the fact that matters are getting worse, not better. I hope that the Minister will reassure me later that the Government will move to deal with the real problems besetting our kids and affecting the communities in which they live. There is also a great deal of evidence to show that they are moving from alcohol abuse to drug abuse. Many of our young kids are being pushed down the road towards criminality, and that is alarming. It is time this place did something about it.
Another omission from the Bill seems to be summed up by the need to improve our court proceedings for taking police evidence. Rightly, there is a great public demand for more police on our streets and in our housing estates to deter crime. I am alarmed by the amount of police time taken up unnecessarily in our courts. Police officers turn up in court and sit there all day, only to be told to go away and return another time. Those policemen are being paid

overtime—money which comes from budgets—or are getting time off; either way they are off the streets where they perform a much needed function. I hope that the Government will look into that at some future date. The police want a change; the community wants the system improved; and we as politicians want to provide our communities with a better police service. We are already trying to relieve the police of civilian jobs, and now we must take them out of the courts and get them on the streets where they can deter crime.
I agreed with quite a lot of what the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said. That will come as a surprise to him: it certainly surprises me. I agree with his remarks about youth organisations—the Boy Scouts, the Boys Brigade and the Girl Guides all do tremendous work in our rural areas and in my constituency.
Clause 17 refers to the revocation of licences. I should like to mention a constituent of mine as a way of highlighting this problem. The case has gone on for some time and has been compounded by recent events. In 1976 George Beattie, who lived in Carluke in my constituency, was convicted of murdering a young woman there. It was a dastardly crime against a woman in the prime of life. George Beattie was released from prison 13 years later on licence. A few months ago he attended an interview with a social worker where tempers became frayed and he is alleged to have kicked the social worker in the knee. I do not judge whether the allegation is true.
The dilemma posed by the case is made all the more acute because there is compelling evidence that George Beattie did not commit the murder. There was a great deal of alarm when he was first convicted because even his defence lawyers, who deserve some criticism, thought that there was not case to answer. Tragically, therefore, their preparation for his defence was less than professional. They thought that the judge would throw the case out. He did not, and George Beattie was convicted by a majority verdict of the jury—despite the fact that there was no corroborating evidence, no forensic evidence, and no confessional evidence that he was guilty. All there was was a spot of blood on a handkerchief which was thought to be the blood of the victim but was proved subsequently not to be.
George Beattie has been pulled back into prison and is serving a life sentence for a crime that he almost certainly did not commit. I accept that all the legislation in the world would not resolve the problem posed by such a case, but I raise it to increase public awareness of the problem. It is insensitive of me, perhaps, to mention the case because I know that it distresses the family of the victim of this terrible crime against a young woman, but two "Rough Justice" programmes on the incident in question have concluded that George Beattie could not have committed the crime.
As a Member of Parliament I cannot sit back and do nothing when I see what I believe to be a grave injustice—regardless of whether George kicked the social worker a few months ago. As I see it, an innocent man is in gaol. Even more disturbing is the fact that if George Beattie is innocent, as he almost certainly is, the guilty person may be walking the streets of Carluke today. I understand that the Minister was formerly a member of the Bar, but I am not a lawyer; I was a humble miner. Tragically, Scottish law does not allow George Beattie another appeal. We must look at that and I hope that in the name of common


decency and justice the George Beattie case can be re-examined because regardless of legal procedures something has to be done.
Clause 20 refers to parole boards. The hon. Member for Tayside, North said that he visited Perth prison. Hon. Members do not make a practice of such visits but I visited Cornton Vale women's prison in Stirling on Friday to see a young woman who in June 1993 will have been in prison for 10 years. She was convicted of a murder that she did not commit together with her father and brother following a fracas outside their home when a knife was drawn and a man died as a consequence. Four police officers in civilian clothes were chasing her young brother after an incident earlier that night. There was a barney during which there was a tragic death. The brother of about 18 admitted that he had used a knife. As a result one of the policemen died.
The Bill mentions heeding the wishes of a judge. At the trial the judge ruled that the case could not be viewed as a police killing because when the fracas started the mother phoned the police on a 999 call which was registered, as are all such calls. Therefore, evidence was produced to show that the family thought they were being attacked by four people and had phoned the police for help. They were unaware that the four plain clothes men involved in the fracas with the family were police officers. That was a tragic incident for all concerned and certainly for the policeman who died. As a result a young man's life has been destroyed. The father and the young man's sister were convicted for what is known as act in part. The Minister will correct me if I have used the wrong phrase.
The young woman that I visited on Friday is called Margaret Smith and she is married with children. The last time she sought parole it was denied for reasons known only to those who give guidance to the parole board. Any guidance not supporting her application for parole did not come from the prison because on Friday after seeing Margaret I spoke to the prison governor, Mr. Abernethy, and to Margaret's immediate governor, Mrs. Carroll, who said that from the time that the young woman entered prison she has been a model prisoner who has never given a minute's trouble. She was described as a most trustworthy prisoner. Every member of the prison staff said, "Why is this young woman still in prison?" Her father has been given a parole date of October 1993. I visited him four years ago to hear his view of the case and found that he was the governor's trustee. Everybody thought that he was a model prisoner and he was not seen as a real criminal. He was the victim of an unfortunate circumstance which ended up in the mincing machine of our court procedures.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) made a relevant point about giving judges discretion on sentencing. In the case I am describing there was a majority verdict, but the judge had no alternative but to impose a life sentence on the father and the young woman who was caught up in the act. It is a great tragedy that so many lives have been ruined.
I am not wishy-washy on crime—far from it. Prisons are there to contain people who threaten our community, but people should not be imprisoned unless they deserve it. My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), who is the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, has conducted much work on mental health. A civilised society should not allow mentally ill people to be imprisoned. I am sure that none of us can put our hand on our heart and say that we support that. At the other end

of the scale a man was recently convicted in Lanark, a town in my constituency, for breaking into a house while wearing a ski mask, assaulting the man and woman in the house and robbing them, and hitting the man on the head with a hammer. Believe it or not, he was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. I intend to write to the Lord Advocate to seek an explanation because when I am asked how such things can happen I have to say that I do not know. How can one defend a system that sends a man to prison for three months for breaking into someone's house and assaulting him with a hammer?

Mr. Gallie: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman because I have had similar cases in my constituency. On a charge of murder a person was eventually sentenced to nine months and another received two years. People in Ayr do not understand how such sentences can be passed.

Mr. Hood: I cannot comment on that case, but in the case that I have mentioned it is beyond my comprehension how such a sentence could have been imposed. People are now sent to prison for speeding in cars, but it seems that the sheriff in Lanark thinks that three months in prison is enough for a masked person who breaks into a house and hits the occupant over the head with a hammer. We must look at how we can balance the extremes on both sides. In a democracy, the penal system must be addressed to the need to punish and to deter, but also to the need to rehabilitate.
Nobody's interest is served by Margaret Smith, whom I visited on Friday, being kept for one minute longer in prison and she should be released, as should her father. As for her brother, who was caught up in the fracas, I am told that the average term of imprisonment for those given a life sentence for murder is 10 to 12 years, so his case should be looked at seriously as well.
During my discussions on Friday, another point came to my notice—perhaps the Minister would like to answer this because I cannot. I am told—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if it is not the case—that a young woman serving a life sentence in Scotland serves, on average, two years longer than a man. Furthermore, C-category lifers are given certain privileges such as visits and permission to work outside the prison. However, a D-category woman prisoner is not allowed to work outside the prison. When I checked the privileges given to C and D-category prisoners—I hope that I am not being too technical—I found that D-category prisoners are allowed to work outside prison only if they have been given a date for their release on parole. This policy has been implemented in Cornton Vale prison where this young woman is imprisoned. However, in men's prisons, C-category lifers are working outside the prisons in preparation for their release.
If the Minister cannot pursue that point tonight, perhaps he will write to me. I am sure that his first response will be to say that it does not happen and that the judicial system administers the same punishments for men as for women but it is strange if the statistics prove that women given life sentences serve longer sentences than men. I hope that the Minister can give me some information on that.
The Bill contains a number of good measures—for example, that on children giving evidence. I am sure that that is not a party political issue. I have spoken about the need to deter through the law and the administration of the law. I meet my local police officers often, and I say this


for no other reason than that I firmly believe it. I am fortunate in that my chief superintendent is the best that one can get and I do not say that because he has moved in to live in my little rural village and is now my neighbour. I have good relations with the police, and I believe that we have different functions in the community. He polices the community and I represent it.
The problems created within our communities can be solved only there. There is no one solution to problems. In solving crime in the community, the police have their functions and the local authority has its functions. The community also has a function—to give assistance to the agencies within it as they seek solutions. That has always been my approach to dealing with the community. A penal system should be created, formed, managed and administered to deter, to punish and to rehabilitate. It must give security to the community by taking crime out rather than by creating crime and thereby putting people in prison.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I welcome this long-overdue Bill, although with some reservations because it has some quite remarkable elements. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), who, as he is not here, is presumably involved in yet another interview, said that the Bill would elicit little interest outside the House. He is wrong. The Bill is important, so important that the Government should seek, by way of Standing Order No. 91, to commit it to a Special Standing Committee, which would allow the Committee to take evidence. Among other things, the Standing Order says:
A special standing committee to which a bill has been committed shall have power, during a period not exceeding 28 days … from the committal of the bill, to send for persons, papers and records, and, for this purpose, to hold up to four morning sittings of not more than three hours each.
The Bill warrants such a Special Standing Committee and I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will consider that request sympathetically.
Although I was unsympathietic to what the hon. Member for Tayside, North had to say, I had a great deal of sympathy for some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Kynoch). My constituency has also suffered recently from a dismal increase in the incidence of violent crime. On this very day, in the High Court in Glasgow, a case involving the murder of a constituent has been set in motion. About 119 constituents of mine will have to give evidence during that trial, which is predicted to last three weeks.
The incidence of violent crime and street crime in my constituency will be diminished only by the presence of more police officers on the streets. I should like to see Chief Superintendent Laurence Macintyre and his fine force of men and women being assisted by the recruitment of at least 20 to 25 uniformed police officers, who should be put on to the streets of Greenock and Port Glasgow. I am convinced that, if that could be achieved, their presence would lead to a diminution in the incidence of violent crime.
I have a couple of comments to make about visiting committees. One object of the Bill is to manage, in a sensible and civilised way, the tensions that arise in our

prisons. Some of the measures in part I will reduce those tensions. I was not happy with the response of the Secretary of State to my comments about the establishment of a visiting committee in Her Majesty's Prison, Greenock.
I have here a letter from Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, dated 29 September, which he sent in response to a letter from me about a recent visit that I made to Greenock prison. In my letter, I referred to the report of Her Majesty's chief inspector following his examination of Greenock prison, in which he had a number of criticisms to make of that establishment. Lord Fraser said:
I accept the point you make about the lack of a Visiting Committee appointed specifically to HM Prison Greenock. Ian Lang gave an undertaking in his reply to the Chief Inspector's report (copy attached) that an amendment to the Prison Rules designating Greenock as a prison in its own right, with its own Visiting Committee, will be promulgated when the current Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill becomes law.
I want to see a visiting committee set up in Greenock at the earliest date possible. The Minister knows, as does anyone with experience of prisons, that the members of visiting committees play a vital role in grievance procedures within such establishments. At present, two overworked members of the Barlinnie committee visit Greenock prison. I think that too great a burden has been placed upon them.
In Greenock prison there is a good relationship between staff and prisoners and it is essential that harmonious relations are maintained. That can be helped to a considerable extent by the setting up of a visiting committee at the earliest possible moment.
An indirect object of the Bill appears to be improving relations between a prison and the community within which it is located. I refer again to the letter of Lord Fraser of Carmyllie and his response to my demand that there should be a creche established in the visiting area of Greenock prison. Lord Fraser wrote:
Due to lack of space it is, unfortunately, not feasible to provide creche facilities in the visitors' reception area itself. However, a creche has now been opened in a room in the prisoner's visiting area, supervised by a local community on a voluntary basis.
I welcome this development by the local community in Greenock, but the prison department has much more to do at the prison, including working on relations between the prison and the local community.
The Minister and I have engaged in some correspondence over these matters, and I remind him that prisons and local communities must maintain harmonious relations. I am pleased to say that that is the case at Greenock, except for my constituents who live in Nimmo street. I note from the Minister's response that that rings a bell with him. My constituents in Nimmo street—Mr. William Marshall at No. 10 and all his neighbours—live in the shadow of the prison. They have made the reasonable request that that side of the prison's perimeter be illuminated at night. Lord Fraser refers to that in his letter but it would seem that the prison department has been a little less than efficient in this instance.
I make no criticism of Governor Gunn and his staff, who are doing an excellent job in difficult circumstances, but the lives of prisoners and perhaps more importantly, in some respects, those of the staff could be made better if the prison department were to get its collective finger out.
The Bill contains some useful and sensible measures in respect of the parole system. I speak with some experience—I think that the Minister knows this—because I used to


be a member of the local review committee at Saughton. I have seen the parole system working as a member of a review committee.
I seek an assurance from the Minister that the measures in the Bill will not place additional burdens upon those hard-working people who are members of the parole board. They have a massive amount of work to do each year in carrying out their tasks and I hope that their work will not be increased by any of the measures in the Bill.
If the Minister has sufficient time—I promise that I shall not speak for too long—I hope that he will add to the comments made by the Secretary of State about clause 21 and the parole advisers. The right hon. Gentleman was a little vague about those who would be taking up this extremely important role. Surely we have a right to know who will carry out the role as specified in the clause.
The part of the Bill that I welcome most of all—this will not surprise the Minister—is set out in clauses 33 to 35. It seems that child care law reform of this sort in Scotland, England and Wales proceeds by way of a leap-frogging system. I have complained in the House in the recent past that Scots law has begun to lag behind English law in terms of certain provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. However, to be fair minded to those who drafted the Bill, it appears—I am not a legal expert—that clauses 33 to 35 will give much greater protection to child witnesses in Scotland than the recent legislation that has been introduced in England.
I was struck by what John Spencer, reader in common law at Cambridge university, wrote in a recent edition of Archbold News, issue 17. When commenting upon developments in England and Wales and those in Scotland, he finished his article by saying:
Meanwhile the Government, which stubbornly resisted allowing the whole of a child's evidence to be taken pre-trial in England, has just introduced a Bill for Scotland that will enable this to be done on the other side of the River Tweed. Is this a controlled experiment in comparative law, one wonders? Or another case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing?
Despite John Spencer's mildly sardonic comment, it is an important development. I wish to ask the Minister some questions, but before doing so I think that tribute should be paid to the members of the Scottish Law Commission, who have played an important role in these developments. We should all be grateful to Sheriff McPhail and his colleagues for their report, which largely, I think, has provided a genesis for clauses 33 to 35.
I have some reservations about certain of the details that appear in clauses 33 to 35. As I suspect that I shall be a member of the Standing Committee that examines the Bill, I shall have the opportunity of taking them up with the Minister. Clause 33(3) refers to a commissioner who will be an advocate or a solicitor. He or she will be appointed by the court to take the evidence of a child. If Lord Hope's recommendation is met, I presume that the commissioner will take the evidence in informal surroundings. Presumably those concerned will remove their wigs and gowns and everyone will sit round a table in as informal a way as is possible.
Clause 33(3) provides:
An accused shall not, except by leave of the commissioner, be present in the room where such proceedings arc taking place but shall be entitled by such means as seem suitable to the commissioner to watch and hear the proceedings.
The words
except by leave of the commissioner

should be deleted. A child giving evidence should not have to be in the same room as the accused, although I accept that the accused has every right, under common justice, to observe the proceedings.
If the accused were to be physically present, that would make nonsense of clause 34, which authorises the use of a screen. The Law Commission, in the form of Michael Clancy's brief, has certain reservations about the use of screens. Will the Minister confirm that it will be a one-way screen, so that the accused will be able to see the child, but that the victim will not have a view of his or her alleged attacker?
That is particularly important given the architectural style of some modern sheriff courts, such as that in Glasgow, where a child might have to give evidence within 10 ft of the accused. The child must be given maximum protection, while at the same time ensuring that the interests of the accused are safeguarded.
I have a number of reservations about clauses 33 to 35, but they signal a remarkable transformation in child care law reform in cases of sexual or violent child abuse or those involving appalling neglect. They will give children the protection that they so rightly deserve.
In some circumstances the accused may be the father Or the older brother or sister. I want to see added to the Bill—or to a Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill—a measure allowing for the removal of the accused from the family home where sexual or physical abuse is involved. At present, not only the victim but his or her brothers and sisters may be removed by social workers. It would be better if the person accused of appalling offences should have to leave instead. I crave the indulgence of the Chair, in that I may be technically out of order in seeking to introduce such an amendment.
The Bill offers a significant development in child care law, and for that reason only I give it a sincere welcome.

Mr. John McAllion: Following the Conservatives' comprehensive defeat in Scotland in the general election, they promised a so-called stocktaking exercise in a bid to devise new ways of improving Scotland's future government. Six months later, the Government have produced nothing new—only a rehash of old ideas, including the concept of a separate legal system.
It is dishonest to argue that Scotland has a separate legal system when it is controlled by a United Kingdom Parliament comprising only 72 Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies and 579 outwith Scotland. If it is argued that Scotland should have different laws, a different legal system, and different methods for dealing with crime, it should also have its own legislature.
The Bill should have been introduced in a Scottish Parliament established after the general election in which 75 per cent. of Scottish voters asked for one. It reflects badly on the Government that the House is tonight debating such a Bill, because it is not the business of a United Kingdom House of Commons to legislate for Scotland's separate legal system. That should be done by a Scottish Parliament, meeting in Edinburgh.
The Secretary of State for Scotland said that the Bill was based on the Kincraig report and referred to its specialised nature. However, as the hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said, there is


a wider public interest in a debate that concerns the treatment of offenders and the operation of the criminal justice system in Scottish society.
Although the Bill appears wide-ranging at first glance—covering as it does young offenders, penalties for prison offenders, criminal investigations, court proceedings and the nature of evidence—its most striking and disappointing feature is the narrowness of its scope. Even the Secretary of State mentioned that.
The Bill is introduced at a time when Scotland's criminal justice system has never been held in lower esteem or been in greater need of wide-ranging reform. Most right hon. and hon. Members have a horror story to tell about the spread of disorder through Scottish society, which has become badly divided by the unemployment, poverty and social injustice that are the fruits of 14 years of Tory government. We also have our horror stories to tell about the way in which the Scottish criminal justice system is failing to deal with the problems created by those social divisions.
I feel that we should ask whether the Bill is an adequate reaction to the Government's current position in Scotland. A centre-page spread in today's Scottish Daily Record gives details of 24 hours of crime in Scotland. It refers to a
wave of crime now sweeping the country",
and to "open season" having been declared on
innocent people who just want to get on with their lives".
It lists a series of offences—73 assaults, 187 house break-ins and 248 thefts from cars—that took place in Scotland in just 24 hours.
Is the Government's response adequate, given the crime wave that has hit Scotland in recent years? Rather than tinkering with the system, the Government should present a Bill to tackle the crime wave that has left so many ordinary Scots living in fear following the many years for which the Minister has been responsible for law and order in their country. The Minister nods: I am sure that he feels deeply embarrassed about his Government's failure to tackle those problems.
I should add that the Scottish Daily Record is not alone in complaining about the current position. I have letters from the Tayside police drawing attention to the increase in crime and lawlessness and expressing special concern about offences committed by those under 16.
It is all very well for the Government to present a Bill dealing with young offenders. That means people in the 16 to 21 age group. Many serious offences are now being committed in Scotland by people below the age of 16, who do not come within the scope of the Bill. That, surely, is a glaring gap in the Government's approach. The police refer to "anti-social behaviour" on the part of under-16s, but "anti-social behaviour" is often serious criminal behaviour. I refer to assaults on individuals, fire-raising, housebreaking, theft and even attacks on policemen.
Surely it is not an adequate response simply to ignore those offences, but at present that is what the Scottish criminal system does. Currently offenders under 16 are dealt with by the children's panels—which have no powers to send them away to secure accommodation—putting them on remand, in young offenders' institutions or in prisons. They no longer even have the option of sending such offenders to list D schools: because of the

Government's public expenditure cuts, list D schools have been closed across Scotland. Local authorities now cannot afford to send children away to secure accommodation.
Nowadays, offenders under 16 are immediately returned to the community. Police representatives tell Members of Parliament that many youngsters regard themselves as flameproof—untouchable by the law and order system. The police have shown me long lists of offences committed by 14 and 15-year-olds, who have been charged again and again, taken before a children's panel, warned and put straight back into the community. They have been sent to children's homes which are not secure accommodation and cannot restrain them; then they are back on the streets, committing the same crimes again, utterly untouched by the system of law and order. What are the Government doing about that? Absolutely nothing.
The Bill could have tackled the problem. The Government could have asked, "What shall we do with this group of offenders in Scottish society?" But the Government have decided to do absolutely nothing—and that is a black disgrace, both to the Minister and to the Secretary of State. They claim to care about law and order, and about the wave of crime that is sweeping Scotland. In reality, however, they will not lift a finger, because to lift a finger would be to incur public expenditure.
In the past week, we have learnt that the Government have no energy policy and no economic policy. Tonight, we have learnt that they have no policy to tackle law and order on the streets of Scotland. That is a glaring omission from the Bill. The remainder of its contents may be worthy in their own way, but until the Government begin to tackle the real problems of law and order in Scottish society they will remain condemned by the people who are suffering from those problems, and who receive no assistance whatever from the Government.

Mr. John McFall: It is a privilege for me to address the House from the Front Bench.
First, let me thank the Secretary of State for the kind remarks that he made at the beginning of the debate. It is typical of him to make such kind personal remarks. In the same vein, I thank the Minister, who has already approached me informally to give me the opportunity to receive briefings on this technical Bill: I appreciate that very much. Having said that, however, let me add that there are deep political divisions between us, and I expect them to come to the fore during our debate on the Bill.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) said that this was not a lawyer's Bill. I am thankful for that, as I am not a lawyer but a mere schoolteacher, and the prospect of dealing with a highly technical legal Bill fills me with trepidation. The hon. and learned Gentleman added, however, that there was a public interest in the Bill, and I agree with that. The public interest aspect is paramount.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) on his witty maiden speech. He grabbed the attention of everyone, particularly when he mentioned Govan Rangers. By doing so he aroused passionate feelings among some Back Benchers. My hon. Friend said that he was a big fish in a small pond there, but I am sure that here he will use the same skills as he used in Strathclyde regional council and that he will


show the same sensitivity towards education and other issues as he did in Strathclyde. [Laughter.] I do not know what hon. Members arc laughing at.
This is a Government of many shades. If they were to act with the same alacrity on prison reform as they acted last week when they took their instant and unilateral decision to condemn 30,000 miners and tens of thousands of others in related industries to the dole queue, the criminal justice system in Scotland would be in a much healthier state. Sadly, however, the Government seem to adopt only negative and destructive policies at top speed. Those that demand careful consideration and attention are left on the back burner. That certainly applies to the Bill, the main part of which relates to the implementation of the Kincraig committee's report on parole and related issues. I shall concentrate on the part I aspect. I welcome the part II aspect, as other hon. Members have done tonight, but part I of the Bill on parole is the main part.
I pay tribute to Lord Kincraig and his committee for the sensitive and constructive way in which they approached their remit. If only the Government had adopted the same approach. The committee was established in December 1987 and published its report in March 1989. To date, no debate has taken place on the report. In its 1991 annual report the Parole Board for Scotland said that it was extremely disappointed that Lord Kincraig's proposals had failed to gain a place in the Government's legislative programme for 1991–92 and that delays in implementing the changes to the system in Scotland had led in their opinion
to uncertainties and loss of faith among prisoners and staff.
Meanwhile, Scotland is becoming more and more out of line with what is happening in England and Wales. We are creating anomalies between the English and the Scottish jurisdictions.
The new English provision came into effect on 1 October 1992. We are still waiting for ours. Kincraig points to this in paragraph 2.32 where it says that it is clear that since 1973 the parole systems north and south have diverged, reflected in the current annual success rates for parole applications. As my hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) said earlier, 57.3 per cent. of eligible prisoners in England and Wales were granted parole, while the equivalent figure for Scotland was 28.4 per cent. The Kincraig committee said that there was no explanation as to why this should be so, given that the British crime survey had shown that there are no great differences in the rates or types of crime between the two jurisdictions.
I should like to look at the Bill in its true context—first, in the specific context of Scotland and the fact that the Bill has emerged from a period in the 1980s of unprecedented upheaval in the Scottish prison system. The mid-1980s saw a series of prison demonstrations and protests, hostage-taking incidents, dirty protests, the destruction of prison property, food protests and overcrowding in particular wings of individual prisons. Notwithstanding last year's Scottish Office proposals for reforming the system in documents such as "Opportunity and Responsibility", it is arguable that the situation in some Scottish prisons remains extremely volatile. How far the proposals in the Bill will affect that is debatable, particularly if the prison population begins to rise again, as the latest figures appear to suggest.
According to an answer to a parliamentary question, the average daily prison population on 3 July 1992 had

climbed to 5,294. It is important to note that Scotland's prison population has been consistently higher, in terms of rate of detention per 100,000 of the country's population, compared with the vast majority of other Council of Europe countries. Taken as a whole, the United Kingdom was first in the table, well ahead of countries such as Greece, Portugal, Spain, France and Denmark. Council of Europe figures for 1987 show that Scotland was first in a league table of 17 countries, with 767.7 per 100,000 people, compared with 350.7 for the United Kingdom. Even allowing for the problems of definition between different states, in a comparative sense Scotland's sentencing policies in the 1980s appeared to be problematic.
The second dimension of the Bill is the Government's attempts to deal with the prison crisis in the United Kingdom in general. The process began with the publication in July 1988 of the Green Paper, "Punishment, Custody and Community", and culminated in the implementation of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 in England and Wales in October 1992. A number of the Scottish Bill's provisions follow on from those already implemented in England and Wales and are linked to an attempt to provide a twin-track approach to sentencing. That approach attempts to reduce the use of custody for less serious offenders while promoting longer sentences for serious crimes. It is important to note, however, that the trend towards longer sentences had been apparent before the implementation of the Bill. The number of prisoners, for example, serving life under section 205 increased from 269 in 1989 to 386 in 1990, while the figures for those serving three years or more increased from 1,176 to 1,211.
There will be little opposition to the general principle of the Bill, but Labour Members regret that the opportunity to address the wider issues of prison legislation and prisoners' rights has not been seized. We are mindful that the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1989 consolidates earlier legislation, but what is needed is a new prisons Act rather than the present piecemeal arrangements for prison legislation.
Although the Bill has a narrow remit from Kincraig's recommendations on parole, we cannot escape the fact that it has wider implications, the first of which is resources. The foreword to the Bill says that its net financial effect will be broadly neutral. That is a stab in the dark. The Government assume that because an increased number of prisoners will be included in the new parole arrangements the prison population will be lower and therefore that savings can be made. But for many offenders, the effective length of sentence will increase as a result of parole considerations from about one third to about half of their sentence. Offenders will now be liable to serve the full term of their sentence if reconvicted for an offence committed before the expiry of that full term. That could lead to a substantial increase in the prison population. The sentencers—the judges and sheriffs—are therefore the key to the impact that the Bill will have in practice. It is essential that the sentencers realise the meaning of many of the sentences that they impose and that a significant number of sentences will become much longer than they are at present.
The danger of implementation of the Bill is that it will be followed by a substantial increase in the prison population. So much is still left to the discretion of the sentencers that there is nothing to stop sheriffs and judges


from scaling up sentences from their present level. That was mentioned by my noble Friend Lord Macaulay of Bragar in the other place.
Clause 16 is the major negative of the Bill. It deals with prisoners who are released on licence who may reoffend. Its inclusion could have the opposite effect of what the Government intended by increasing the prison population. If a prisoner is committed for a minor offence, on release he is tried not only for the minor offence but in addition has to serve the remainder of the offence that he or she was originally serving. For a minor offence, that person could be referred to a higher court, a sheriff court or even the High Court.
It should be borne in mind that in Scotland 99.9 per cent. of offences can be punished by imprisonment. Let us take an example. An offender who is serving a long prison sentence is out on licence and commits a breach of the peace. Normally, there would be a £30 fine, say, in a district court, but because he is out on licence he could be referred by the magistrate to the sheriff court or to the High Court. That could result in him going back to prison for four or five years or even longer as a result of that minor offence. The Bill presently allows that possibility. That would most certainly have the consequence of increasing the prison population.
We must also remember the power given to the local police. As hon. Members have said, it is not difficult for the police to charge an individual with a minor offence, but for a prisoner out on licence it could have immense consequences because of the court's discretion as a result of the Bill. It is a matter of public interest, certainly, but should the consequences be so dramatic for minor offences? Should not the Government look again at clause 16 and, instead of relating it to all offences, relate it only to minor offences? If clause 16 related to minor offences, the court could look at them in isolation.
Resources and local authorities have also been mentioned. Local authorities have to supervise prisoners who are out on licence—not only those who are released at the half-way stage but those who are eligible for parole at the half-way stage and automatically released at the two-thirds stage. They will be licensed but not unconditionally. Previously, people volunteered for parole. They got something back; there was a quid pro quo. Now long-term offenders who are released at the two-thirds stage will have no quid pro quo and there will be enormous social work implications with people on licence who are reluctant. This will result in major changes for social workers.
What is the Government's estimate of the number of people who are recalled for further offences? Have the Government made any projections on that matter? We understand that the Government's intention is to abolish the statutory after care for 16 to 20-year-olds. Presently, for 16 to 18-month sentences, that care lasts six months. For those with sentences longer than 18 months it lasts for 12 months. On 31 December 1991, Strathclyde regional council had 299 after care cases. As a rule of thumb, we can double that for Scotland and thereby find that we have fewer than 600 after care cases. That will not be much of a saving as there will be more long-term prisoners who are

released on licence. There will be greater pressure on local authority budgets which, in the next week or two, will be under enormous pressure.
Still on the subject of finance, many social work departments would concede that their ability to provide adequate supervision and adequate after care is limited. To add the parole requirements contained in the Bill without providing funds for increased staffing levels would make a mockery of implementation. Without a commitment to introducing and financing community care provision, it is unlikely that offenders will be high on the political agenda, especially given that offenders are not a designated group under the community care provisions.
What is the present state of public expenditure and what are its implications for individuals recently released from prison? Last week, I received a letter from a constituent, a woman who was helping a teenager who had just come out of prison. The teenager applied to the DSS for a clothing grant but was refused. The boy in question had just finished a nine-month sentence for robbery. My constituent said:
This is not an isolated case, indeed according to the official we spoke with, most prisoners are now considered low priority.
The young boy got nothing extra with his grant. My constituent pointed out that
This does nothing to stop the reoffending process which we see so often in our community.
She continued that
the employment situation in this particular area is very low and jobs for ex-offenders practically non-existent.
Like most offenders, that boy risks turning to crime in order to clothe himself. My constituent has asked me to look at that case carefully and I will do that. However, I remind the Minister of the Government's policies over the past 13 years. They have increased deprivation in our communities. It is undeniable that there is a direct link between levels of deprivation and levels of imprisonment. Opposition Members see that day in and day out.
Another aspect that the Bill does not deal with is the particular experiences of women in prison. Clause 14 relates to "Supervised release orders." That provision is intended "to protect the public." That is a dominant criterion for the utilisation of supervised release orders. However, where does that leave women in prison? The overwhelming majority of women are not dangerous and the public do not need protection from them. A whole range of literature shows that women prisoners are different in terms of their crimes and experiences and perhaps need a different response, particularly in the establishment of alternatives to custody.
Sadly, the question of alternatives to custody is not considered in the Bill. Again, we are behind England and Wales where one of the central debates in criminal justice legislation has been alternatives to custody. For example, the Criminal Justice Act 1991 introduced radical alternatives and improvements and restrictions in sentences. One restriction is for sentencers to consider the nature of the offence before them. That does not happen in Scotland. Someone in Scotland might still go to prison for a substantial period for stealing a bottle of whisky because the fact that that person has stolen on a number of occasions in the past is taken into account. The criminal justice system in England has removed that and I suggest that the Minister should consider that aspect in relation to Scotland.
Clause 24 allows governors to take remission from a remand prisoner
conditionally on his eventually becoming such a prisoner".
That is very unfair and is inconsistent. Remission may be taken off even before a sentence is begun. The Bill still allows that to happen and the Minister should also consider that point.
Clause 20(4)(c) and clause 20(5) are also matters of concern. They allow the Secretary of State to give direction to the parole board about what it should take into account when considering cases and how it should discharge its functions. It appears—and this is all I would say at the moment—that that provides an avenue for the possibility of the exercise of political influence over the board such as the overnight imposition of a new parole policy undertaken by the then Secretary of State, Mr. George Younger, in 1984. That imposition has been roundly condemned and was considered to be a contributory factor to the prison riots in the 1980s. It is very important that the Minister considers clause 20 again.
Clause 20 gives cause for concern if one is suspicious about such matters. However, should we be suspicious about the Government today when they flag up perhaps a few days in advance all the mistakes that they are going to make anyway? However, the Minister should reflect on the implications of clause 20.
In respect of clause 20(4), the Law Society notes with concern that children who are convicted under section 206 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1975 are excluded from the present practice of granting remission to prisoners serving a determinate sentence. It is unjust for a person under the age of 16 to be denied remission for any crime attracting a custodial sentence purely on the basis of age.
That unfairness was highlighted in a recent High Court trial in Glasgow which concluded in identical sentences of custody for adults and a 15-year-old juvenile. The adults were subsequently released on remission, but the juvenile was required to serve the sentence in full. The Government should accept that if automatic remission is available it should also apply to juveniles. Presently the position of juveniles is anomalous.
As hon. Members have said, clause 1 relates to life sentence prisoners. The Bill distinguishes between mandatory and discretionary life sentences. That procedure has been the subject of widespread criticism because of its secrecy, discretionary nature and the detrimental effect that such mandatory sentences have on prisoners and their families. Indeed, the Kincraig committee made several criticisms of the current practices. The committee was drawn to the argument that life should be the maximum sentence, rather than the mandatory penalty for murder. That argument was also supported in amendments tabled by their Lordships in another place and by the Law Lords in their House of Lords Select Committee report on murder and life imprisonment. Their recommendations would have brought release procedures for lifers into line with several European Court judgments. The Government opposed the amendments, despite being defeated by a wide margin in the House of Lords. I ask the Minister to think again about those matters.
What about the merits of this Bill? I would describe it as a hesitant step forward. The main question that we should address is whether the Scottish criminal justice system imprisons too many people unnecessarily and for

too long. On the evidence in the league tables, I suggest that, compared with the rest of Europe, we do indeed imprison too many people unnecessarily and for too long.
The wider implications and their impact on the Bill are even more important. Rather than reducing the prison population, the arrangements set down in the Bill could increase it. I have already mentioned the resources resulting from the implications of the Bill. They are extremely important. The impact of the Bill will not be neutral, so extra money is needed. The Government cannot improve the criminal justice system in Scotland without providing extra money. If the Government care about the people in prison, they must examine those resources. Education is an example which is dear to my heart. The estimates for teachers' salaries were £1.02 million for 1990–91 and £1.03 million for 1991–92. We do not yet have a proper, structured education system in the prisons. Even today, we do not have a proper screening process for all prisoners for standards of literacy and numeracy. The Government should attempt to tackle that particular issue if the necessary rehabilitative effect is to work.
In order to minimise recidivism, links with families are important. We know that abrupt separation between arrest and remand has consequences for relationships and can have a significant effect on the incomes of families. What have the Government to offer in this respect, particularly for poor and disadvantaged families? Extra home leave has been provided in a number of cases, but it results in extra pressure on the family budget, which is inadequate in the first place. The Government have not dealt with the additional cost of a five-day home visit for some prisoners. So they have put more rather than less pressure on the prisoner and his or her family. I should like the Government to examine the philosophy of home leave and perhaps extend it to limited custody, under which a prisoners' obligations to his family are maintained and he is not allowed to duck those obligations.
The Government and the Scottish Office have so far failed to offer any predictions or projections about the future prison population. Indeed, I asked the House of Commons Library to examine that issue for me. It wrote back to say that the Scottish Office does not publish projections of prison populations. Again, that is out of line with England and Wales and the Government should pay attention to that. Previous comments about sentencers scaling up sentences and about the degree of recidivism mean that substantial increases in the prison population are likely to result. Given the large number of people who go through the prison system, putting us at the top of the European league, it could be argued that projections of increased prison populations are even more applicable given the predilections of sentencers for sending people to prison.
In the present law and order climate, it is highly debatable that the position of the reformers on crime and punishment will be adopted. If that is the case, the Bill will fail to alleviate the crisis inside prisons and outside in the wider criminal justice system. That could have detrimental and perhaps dire consequences for both prisoners and prison staff as well as for society.
Whilst Opposition Members welcome the introduction of the Bill and consequently will not vote against it, we shall, however, examine it in detail to discover whether the


Government's rhetoric stands up to examination. For our part we shall ensure that our deliberations contribute towards improving the criminal justice system in Scotland.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Davidson) on his speech. It was a well delivered, excellent speech, showing good humour. He made a patriotic reference to the many attributes of his constituency, for which I warmly congratulate him. His experience of education will be of benefit to the House. I think that Coplaw street, which I know well from having attended the drill hall, is in his constituency. The standards of Scottish piping were extremely high. I wish the hon. Member well and look forward to his future contributions in the House. His reference to the formidable intellect of his predecessor, Bruce Milian, will be appreciated by those who well remember having to spar with him across the Gangways.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall), who made his first speech from the Opposition Front Bench, mentioned many interesting and important matters. I can reassure him on one. The Bill rectifies the anomaly on remission for children, which he rightly pointed out, and it gives children and adults the same early release entitlements.
Many important issues have been raised. The hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) mentioned prisoners' rights, prison rules and the role of social workers. I hope to go into those matters in detail. The hon. Member for Dumbarton mentioned the difference between Scotland and England, and I shall go into the figures. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) supported early release, which I welcome, and the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) mentioned children's evidence, which we regard as extremely important. My hon. Friends the Members for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) and for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) referred to the extremely important matter of public protection, which will remain uppermost in our minds.
Virtually every Member supported the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that he wished to reverse the policy of the other place in trying to reverse the decision on war crimes through the back door, and I shall return to that.
To set the subject in perspective, I suggest that we deliberately developed an important theme during the last Parliament—the decision to open up the prison system to public scrutiny and to introduce what I would describe as glasnost to a world which literally operated behind closed doors, a world which was secretive when I first became a Minister, and which was the subject of much rumour and speculation. That policy was put into effect by the then director, Peter McKinlay, and the press and public were invited into prisons to see for themselves the truth behind the rumours and speculation. Greater openness is now a regular feature of our prison life and of the way in which prisons are run. Prisons have been demystified, and that is a big change. It has become normal practice to publicise

the facilities which prisons offer, to allow inmates to be interviewed and to promote full discussion of the aims and objectives of the Scottish prison service.
We have made a survey of the views of prisoners. One issue that came out of the survey was the need for excellent visiting facilities and for improvements to them. That was on the top of their list; that was useful to know because we can direct our energies and attention towards those aspects.
The move to openness, which I strongly supported. has been of great benefit to prisoners and their families. It has also benefited the staff, who have become accustomed to a culture of openness and accountability. They are being trained to regard prisoners as responsible individuals who, within the confines of their sentence and the restrictions that it imposes, can be encouraged to take responsible decisions for themselves. The provisions of part I of the Bill must be seen against that background, and that policy is steadily being taken forward in the Bill.
For prisoners serving longer terms of imprisonment the parole decision is of fundamental importance. The Bill will lead to a fairer, more consistent and more open parole system, in which prisoners will know the factors that count and how their cases will be assessed. The new scheme will provide a better fit with other key initiatives in the prison service, such as sentence planning. In that connection, we favour open reporting—the hon. Member for Monklands, West touched upon that.
The Kincraig committee recommended that prisoners should be able to see reports on them which formed the basis for consideration of the outcome of their cases with the parole board. Although there is no statutory provision to that effect, we intend that there should eventually be full disclosure. But the process of moving from a closed to an open system must be carefully managed. There will need to be adequate safeguards for information in case disclosure damages a third party or a prisoner personally. Those issues are now being looked at carefully and I am glad to report to the House that open reporting by prison service staff is now being piloted at Perth prison. That pilot scheme is being evaluated by the central research unit of the Scottish Office and the findings of the evaluation will pave the way for the introduction of open reporting in other establishments.
Prison staff are not the only contributors to parole dossiers. Open reporting by other professional groups, such as social workers and psychiatrists, is a more sensitive area and in the next few months we plan to go into the issues more thoroughly to achieve more openness for the other parties.
I also accept that prisoners should be given reasons for decisions on parole. The criteria for parole are to be set out in policy directions given under the provisions in clause 20(5), which makes protection of the public the central consideration. In future, reasons for parole decisions will be given to prisoners in terms of those criteria. It will be for the parole board to consider how the reasons should be communicated. The ideal solution would be to communicate the decision by letter to prisoners, but it would take careful planning and management to ensure that letters are sensitively worded and properly dispatched.
An increase in permanent staff allocated to service the board will be required and will have to he considered against other priorities. Again, statutory provision is not needed.
In a thoroughly prepared and interesting speech, the hon. Member for Monklands, West mentioned fine defaulters. I am glad to say that it is not correct that 40 per cent. of the prison population are fine defaulters. Forty per cent. of the receptions and only 5 per cent. of the average daily population are fine defaulters. However, I accept the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. Indeed, the Bill's purpose is to introduce tougher measures for long-sentence prisoners who are a danger to the community, and more generosity and leniency for minor offenders.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I do not seek to score a point, but during the debate we have been looking for clarification. What is the difference between 40 per cent. of prisoners regarded as "reception" and the reduction to 5 per cent.? What happens to those people in between?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: That was puzzling to me and I made inquiries on that point. Many receptions have their fines paid quickly by relatives, which clogs up the whole "prison system with extra administration. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point but I am glad to assure him that we are taking measures. For example, we now have a pilot scheme of supervised attendance orders in place of imprisonment for defaulters. We have also engaged in the deduction of fines from benefit, along the lines of deductions for electricity and gas. Both measures are alternatives to imprisonment for fine default.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about the duration of post-release supervision. The Bill does not require supervision for the whole period of release on licence. Supervision will normally be fairly intense shortly after release, but as the prisoner settles down within the community the need for contact with his supervising officer should diminish. Within a year or two following release, contact with the supervising officer may not be necessary more often than once every few months and may even become wholly unnecessary. At that point, the supervision condition in the former prisoner's licence may be cancelled.

Dr. Godman: Who will decide whether the supervision is to continue—the social worker/probation officer?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall make inquiries and write to the hon. Gentleman.
I believe that the hon. Gentleman also asked about the training of parole advisers, and who they would be. They will be volunteers and will no doubt be well qualified to carry out their function. Parole advisers will need to be trained to carry out their duties, but it is not intended that they should act as prisoners' representatives. Prisoners should make their representations in their own words to the parole board.
Parole advisers will need to understand the requirements and procedures in order to explain them to prisoners and help them to make representations if the prisoners want that help. Members of the parole board and staff of the Scottish Office Home and Health Department will provide the necessary briefing and training for. parole advisers. If a prisoner wants legal advice, he or she should get it from a lawyer; it is not intended that parole advisers should take over such work.

Mr. William McKelvey: Will the parole board have—as at present—information about a prisoner that may not necessarily involve

convictions? Such information may relate to suspicions of crimes which may have been committed but of which the prisoner has not been convicted in court.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have witnessed the parole board in action and I am not aware of activities along those lines. I shall have to make inquiries and write to the hon. Gentleman to inform him fully on that.
The hon. Member for Monklands, West spoke of prison rules and grievance procedures—matters which we shall be taking forward. There is a small working group on grievance procedures; its report and recommendations were published and given wide circulation. We plan to begin to introduce new procedures in 1993 following consultation. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that as soon as we are clear on every detail of the revised rules we shall lose no time in laying the provisions before the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Kynoch) raised the issue of corroboration to be used to enable the prosecution to succeed in cases involving the stealing of birds' eggs. The requirement for corroboration may mean that the evidence of a single witness corroborated by evidence of another type may be sufficient to enable a successful prosecution. The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East said that we should be careful in changing the law on corroboration because what is at stake is not the admissibility but the sufficiency of the evidence.
As for the parole board being used as a court, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that where detention is justified purely on grounds of public risk such grounds must be determined by a body constituted as a court: that means the holding of hearings, legal representation for the parties and the disclosure of documents. The rules that may be made under clause 20 of the Bill will provide for those aspects. The rules will be laid before the House in the form of a statutory instrument.
The hon. and learned Member for Fife, North-East spoke of children detained without limit of time. I wish to dispel one or two misunderstandings that have arisen in the past. The sentence passed when a child is detained without limit of time does not mean detention without the possibility of release but is equivalent to the mandatory life sentence. Anyone so sentenced can be released at any time by the Secretary of State after consultation with the judiciary, provided he has a positive recommendation from the parole board.
In an effort to give residential establishments greater flexibility in managing young people, we have introduced a scheme whereby those young people may be taken on escorted outings at regular intervals for sporting and other leisure activities. In the last Parliament, I sometimes had the responsibility of deciding whether prisoners should be released for educational courses. Uppermost in my consideration was the protection of the public and if I had any doubts about that I said no. Although none of the cases with which I was involved came before the House, they did involve a great deal of care and trouble. I have no doubt that the same will apply in future.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ayr is anxious that we should have a vigorous law and order policy and that we should not be unnecessarily lenient. I think that I can reassure him. We take parties of constituents around the Houses of Parliament; we come across a marble statue in the other place of Queen Victoria flanked by celestial


supporters representing justice and mercy. I believe that a great nation should be capable of each quality, and it is vital that we should know when to apply each one.
Although the Bill promotes greater fairness and consistency, it will also strengthen the deterrent effect of long sentences. Offenders sentenced to four or more years will have to wait until they have served at least half their sentence before being considered for parole, instead of one third as at present. So the Bill restores the meaning to the full duration of a long sentence by ensuring that release, when it comes, will be on licence, with a liability to recall for breach of licence. It also makes all released prisoners subject to recall by order of the court should they commit a further offence punishable by imprisonment during the outstanding part of the sentence.

Mr. McFall: Can the Minister confirm that such release will have implications for social work and that the financial effects of the Bill will, therefore, not be neutral in that respect? Will he undertake to look at the implications for local authorities and social work departments?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, of course it will have such implications, but the hon. Gentleman correctly said that we cannot exactly estimate what they will be, for the simple reason that three factors are difficult to assess exactly: the number of supervised release orders that will be made by the courts, the duration of supervision that will be specified and the average duration and intensity of that supervision. Taking all the factors into account, however, we estimate that the costs will probably be somewhat less than £1 million. On the other hand, it should be borne in mind that the release of short-term prisoners at half sentence rather than two thirds will tend to reduce average daily prison populations and hence marginal costs. On the whole, we expect the increase in costs and the savings attributable to part I of the Bill to be roughly in balance. We shall have to keep a careful eye on this issue and provide the necessary resources—the hon. Gentleman's point was well made.
The hon. Member for Dumbarton also drew comparisons with the rate of parole in England. For instance, he suggested that the 1984 policy was to blame for the fact that fewer Scots prisoners, relatively speaking, were recommended for parole than prisoners in England and Wales. But there is another reason—in England and Wales, from June 1984 until recently, the minimum period qualifying for parole was six months, while in Scotland it was and remains 12. Also, in England and Wales, local review committees have operated for some time under a presumption in favour of parole for all those sentenced to less than two years. The parole rate for this category in England and Wales has been between 75 and 80 per cent. That is part of the reason for the significant difference in the two jurisdictions.
Another significant fact is that the recall rates north and south of the border are different. In England and Wales a far greater number have had to be recalled to custody for breach of licence. In 1991, according to the respective parole board reports, there were 964 recalls of determinate sentence prisoners in England and Wales and only 17 in Scotland.
I suggest that as of 1 October a new system will have been implemented in England and Wales under the Criminal Justice Act 1991, so when we are in a position to compare like with like we can make good progress.
In the other place, Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen complained that we had considered the Bill at too short notice. There is much to be said for making haste slowly. Two years have elapsed between the publication of the Government's response to Kincraig and the introduction of the Bill in May. The Carlisle report for England and Wales was published about five months earlier, but there was also in prospect a far-reaching criminal justice Bill and it is appropriate to have a Bill to deal thoroughly and in depth with these matters.
The policy announced in 1984 by the Secretary of State still stands, but we are committed to ending that policy in so far as it applies to determinate prisoners as soon as the statutory criteria for public risk are in place. We instigated the Kincraig report to measure the effectiveness of that policy in the light of experience and consequently have decided on this course.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North and the hon. Member for Monklands, West spoke about the important issue of compassionate early release. The people primarily in mind are those who may be dying and have been imprisoned for committing serious crimes. If they are no longer a threat to anyone, the issue of their release should command some consideration. The Bill will benefit the small group of prisoners whose immediate release is justified on, for example, grounds of health. It will be a necessary condition that the person concerned should not pose a threat to the public and the advice of the parole board will be obtained.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North spoke about discretionary life prisoners. Hon. Members have welcomed the introduction of new offences other than murder. Clause 2 expressly recognises that where the court passes a sentence of life imprisonment for crimes such as culpable homicide, attempted murder, rape or wilful fire-raising, it may have two purposes in mind—to deter or to protect the public, or both. The European Court of Human Rights has determined that the matter of detention on grounds of public risk requires periodic review by a body which has the constitution and functions of a court. Clause 2 complies with that judgment by providing that, after a period specified by the sentencing court has elapsed, the life prisoner will have the right to have his or her case reviewed every two years by the parole board. We intend to make rules to provide for the parole board to take on the character of a court in order to conduct these reviews with appropriate legal representation.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: It may be difficult for the Minister to answer within the confines of the debate, but has he been able to form a view about what I said earlier—clause 6(2) appears to contain an infelicitous, indeed inept, reference to the contents of section 206 of the 1975 Act?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The point was technical, but I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that perusal of the terms of section 206 might lead one to suppose that only a determinate sentence is possible. There is one case in which, without limit of time, a sentence was passed under section 206 as a maximum not a mandatory sentence, and that was upheld on appeal. Clause 6(1)


makes provision for such a case by applying the provisions of part I of the Bill as they apply to adults. Should such a sentence ever again be imposed, it is most probable that the judge will order that the relevant provisions in clause 2 are to apply—in other words, that the child should be treated in the same way as a discretionary life prisoner.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have many questions to answer but I shall give way to my hon. and learned Friend.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Does my hon. Friend not think it strange that, for whatever reason, a life sentence is up for review every two years? Therefore, the sentence may be only two years, whereas a mandatory sentence has to be served for at least part of the pronounced sentence. Is it not rather odd that the longest sentence—the life sentence—should be the one that can be shortened the most, whereas the statutory sentence cannot be shortened more than by two thirds? Should not my hon. Friend look at the fatuosity of a life sentence that says, "We shall send you to prison but it might he for a week or it might be for ever"?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The duration of licence is potentially until the end of the full sentence. My hon. and learned Friend has defended those who have been in prison for life and who are now out in the community. When and whether they should ever be allowed to return to the community depends first and foremost on the protection of the public.
The hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow mentioned children's evidence. Evidence can be taken in three ways, of which the first is by live television link, as authorised by the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1990—the hon. Gentleman and I both participated in the Committee examining that Bill. Evidence can also be taken on commission and recorded for video transmission, as authorised by clause 33, and taken with the accused shielded from the view of the child, as authorised by clause 34. In each of these cases, in the interests of justice and fairness, the evidence will be subject to cross-examination on behalf of the accused person, who will continue to be able to see and hear the evidence being given. Like the hon. Gentleman, I pay tribute to the Scottish Law Commission report in this connection.
This brings me to the issue of evidence by live television link in relation to war crimes—a subject raised by several hon. Members. In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear our intentions in relation to clause 32 and, in particular, subsection (5), which was inserted in the other place. The provisions of clause 32 can be invoked either by the prosecution or by the defence. Briefly, they enable either party to apply to the court in any solemn proceedings for the issuing of a letter of request to a court or other authority in a country outside the United Kingdom in which resides a witness whose evidence is relevant to the case.
The letter of request would seek assistance in facilitating the giving of evidence by the witness through a live television link. The application for a letter of request

is to be granted only—this is important—if the judge is satisfied as to the matters specified in subsection (3) and in particular that the granting of the application is both in the interests of justice and is not unfair to the accused where the application is at the instance of the prosecution. In other words, we see this as being entirely in the interests of justice and not unfair to the accused.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: In his last couple of minutes, will the Minister respond to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) about the treatment of women offenders, because women are far less likely to be guilty of violent crime?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Lady is taking me out of the sequence of my remarks, but I can tell her that I once had to defend a lady who had killed her husband by shooting him, and she was put on probation. Therefore, I know from experience that not all ladies are discriminated against in these matters. We should be against such discrimination, if there were any.
We propose that the giving of evidence by television link should be fully and carefully debated on the Floor of the House at a later stage. I can see nothing wrong in principle with the use of today's advanced technology to facilitate the giving of evidence by witnesses whose presence in court is not possible, provided that is in the best interests of justice. The House will, I think, agree that the proposed new provisions contain every necessary safeguard.
I have only a few seconds remaining for my speech. I conclude by saying that the Bill has a strong reforming purpose. It will be in the best interests of Scotland's prisons, prisoners, prison officers and the public at large, and I strongly commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 61 (Committal of Bills).

PRISONERS AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS] [Money [

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill [Lords] it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament—

(1) of any sums required by the Secretary of State for defraying the expenses of the Parole Board for Scotland;
(2) of any expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in paying remuneration and allowances to parole advisers appointed under that Act;
(3) of any administrative expenses incurred by the Secretary of State under that Act; and
(4) of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other Act.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

PRISONERS AND CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS (SCOTLAND) BILL [LORDS]

Ordered,
That the Prisoners and Criminal Proceedings (Scotland) Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with as if it had been certified by the Speaker as relating exclusively to Scotland.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

Orders of the Day — Bloodstock Industry

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lightbown.]

10 pm

Mr. James Paice: ; I welcome the opportunity to use the first Adjournment debate after the summer recess to raise a subject about which I have spoken before in the House. Its significance has come into stark reality during the recess.
I am privileged to represent the principal bloodstock breeding constituency within the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Spring) and I represent the centre of the United Kingdom racing industry in and around Newmarket. I am also the chairman of the relevant all-party committee. From these two positions I have witnessed the problems of the racing and bloodstock industry develop over the past few months and years.
I welcome the many hon. Members on both sides of the House who have remained in their places to be part of this evening's debate. I hope that their presence is not lost on my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who is standing in for my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General. My colleagues, like myself, have witnessed over the past few months a number of events, not least the fact that the BBC has presented two separate programmes in which it examined the severe financial constraints facing the industry, the decline in the number of horses in training—half the yards in Newmarket are supposed to be for sale—the decline in the number of owners and the efforts that are being made by the industry to help itself by the establishment or the creation of the British Racing Board.
I shall quote from a letter written by a Member of the other place to his trainer. The passage reads:
I have really reached the end of the line with British racing and breeding, and facing up to the economics are just ridiculous. Perhaps one day the Government will see the error of their ways, and then I will be back.
That is typical, unfortunately, of the attitude that is being taken by many owners.
I do not need to rehearse all the facts about the industry. Suffice to say that "Panorama" stated that it is the sixth largest industry in the country. It is even larger, dare I say, than the coal industry. It is estimated that the breeding side alone employs about 17,000 people. The entire racing industry involves about 100,000 jobs. It has a positive balance of payments, with exports direct from the sale ring of about £20 million. They amount to considerably more when private sales are taken into account
As the House will be aware, the changes in value added tax brought about by the single market and the end of certain special arrangements mean that as from 1 January 1993 our industry will have to compete with those of Ireland and France at 2.3 per cent. and 5.5 per cent. respectively. The inevitable result is that bloodstock breeders in the United Kingdom will send their horses abroad to be sold. It is certain that the studs will follow, especially the larger ones, which are often owned by overseas residents. We shall be left only with the breeders of second-class animals. There will be many fewer jobs, and less tax revenue for the Government.
Also, overseas owners of mares will not send them to stallions in the United Kingdom because, unless there is

some extension of the current temporary import arrangement, they would have to pay VAT on the charges. Stallion investment as well is now in serious jeopardy.
The good news during the recess was the decision by Tattersalls, this country's leading auctioneers, to remain in Britain as a result of the measures already taken by the Government to mitigate the problem. They deserve credit for that, but the issue goes beyond the location of Tattersalls, which, as with many other service sector companies, reflects the industry's financial health at any one time.
The House could be forgiven for believing that the difficulties I have described are new and have been brought about by the single European market. Sadly, that is not the case. The problem has existed for many years. I have a letter from a former Treasury Minister relating to the belief that the French would not apply VAT law correctly. Nothing has changed in that regard. He wrote:
I gave an assurance that the Government would follow up the earlier official protests made to the Commission in May. It should become clear in the course of the next month whether we can realistically progress within an acceptable time scale. However, should it become apparent that we cannot, then the Government will give further and urgent consideration to the bloodstock problems as a whole.
That Minister was Peter Rees, and the date of his letter was 30 August 1979. As my hon. Friend the Minister acknowledges by his smile, that month has become somewhat extended—to 13 years and two months. Still that unfair discrepancy exists, worsened by the rise in VAT rates and single market changes.
The lesson to be learnt is that any protest to the Commission is a waste of time. France, or any other nation, will do what is in its special interest. Although my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General and his predecessors have consistently referred to the need to press the Commission to take action, my right hon. Friend must understand that the industry and many right hon. and hon. Members view such pronouncements with a degree of scepticism.
A year ago, the Select Committee on Home Affairs, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster, North (Sir J. Wheeler), undertook a highly regarded investigation into the financing of the racing industry. The Select Committee concluded that the Government must act quickly to alleviate the serious discrepancy that I mentioned. Consequently, the Minister then having responsibility for such matters—my right hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mrs. Shephard)—undertook a considerable amount of work to devise the flat-rate scheme for farmers that is now embodied in the Finance Act 1992. The industry made it plain, however, that it would not help most of the major United Kingdom breeders—and that is proving to be the case.
More recently, my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General devised an extension of the rules governing distant selling to provide for temporary export as a means of avoiding the full VAT implications. That is of benefit only in respect of horses valued at more than 15,000 guineas, because it still costs the owner about £700 to export an animal to Ireland to complete the necessary paperwork—only for the new owner to bring the horse back. My right hon. Friend deserves credit for that concept, but it is not in itself sufficient. Most breeders of such horses would rather pay that £700 and sell them in a foreign sale ring.
The results of the first two sales at Tattersalls this autumn fulfilled the worst prophecies. The combined total income fell from £24 million last year to £16 million—a decline of 32 per cent. That itself cost the Government £1.4 million in lost VAT revenue. I emphasise that that money has gone already. The Treasury loses out regardless, and the country loses out because our blookstock industry is severely damaged.
My hon. Friend the Minister—and, indeed, others—may be tempted to dismiss the reduction in prices as simply part of the recession. Before they do so, they should study the catalogues for the Deauville sales in France: they will find that in the past two years there has been a substantial increase in the number of consignments of horses from British breeders who had previously sent their horses to Tattersalls. Furthermore, in the past few weeks the Maktoum family—whose racehorse interests in this country are extensive—has decided to reduce its activities here. That family has given as one of the two main reasons for its move the VAT rate. Already the family had been approached by a senior official of the French Government, who were anxious to encourage it to remove all its racing interests to France and prepared to offer help to that end. The Maktoums may be the most well known, but many smaller breeders and owners are tempted to follow.
My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has taken a considerable interest in the matter, and that is of course very welcome. His attendance at various meetings has been widely recognised. None the less, the industry, in which Britain has always been pre-eminent, is going into permanent decline, not because of any inefficiency on its part or because of poor quality of production or lack of competitiveness, but simply because of Government-created inequalities in taxation. I have always supported my Government's policy of harmonisation through the market place rather than through regulation. Now the market has clearly spoken, and the Government should respond.
Let me make it clear to the House, and to my hon. Friend the Minister, that I am not looking for a subsidy. I would not do that, because I do not believe that the industry needs or should have such a subsidy. I must add that the Paymaster General's comments on the subject in The Racing Post were not very well received by the industry. Nor am I looking for special treatment for the industry—and for that reason I am not speaking in favour of a special low rate of VAT, which, although perfectly legal, I accept is not a realistic proposition at this time.
I am not looking for something that no one else has. What I am looking for is business registration for VAT purposes for racehorse owners. That would place United Kingdom owners back on a level footing. It would enable them to reclaim VAT on their inputs, and, indeed, to pay it on their outputs. It might well be possible to combine it with VAT on prize money—that is what happens in many other countries—and it would give the Government some payback. The horse race advisory council's taxation committee has worked on the whole question of output and its definition.
As the House will know, the question of businesses and their definition comes under VAT law—specifically, under the sixth VAT directive, article 4, which defines a taxable person as any person who carries out any economic activity, whatever the purpose or results of that activity.
My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General has said that, because racehorse ownership is, in his view, a hobby

and not a profit-making activity, it is in some way excluded. I must tell him that at no place in the directive does the motivation for carrying out an economic activity come into the matter. In no place does the directive refer to the profit motive as being necessary. Indeed, in article 6—which defines the supply of services—it is specifically stated that the following should be treated as supplies of services for consideration:
supplies of services carried out free of charge by the taxable person for his own private use or that of his staff or more generally for purposes other than those of his business".
That clearly encompasses racehorse ownership, and my right hon. Friend really could use that as a basis for assisting the industry.
Of the other 11 countries—all tied by the same sixth VAT directive—eight allow, in one way or another, racehorse ownership to be registered as a business. I hope that the Minister will tell my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General that I know that Customs and Excise states that in many countries it is not allowed and that he should look not at the official position but at what in reality is happening in those countries. If he does so, he will find that the vast majority of racehorse owners are able to register and that in most of those countries prize money is taxed at VAT rates. The industry in this country would accept that as part of the quid pro quo for this movement. Touche Ross carried out an investigation into the question of VAT on bloodstock in all Community countries. I am sure that its information could be made available to the Government, if they do not already have it.
The simple conclusion, therefore, is that if all countries in the Community are tied by the same VAT directives as we are, how can it be that this country can resist—I accept that Ireland does the same—the registration of racehorse ownership as a business for VAT purposes? Before my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General says that he believes that the other countries are wrong and that he will protest to the Commission, I have to remind him of the letter from Peter Rees in 1979 which demonstrates that these protests are absolutely fruitless. The Customs and Excise lawyers should look at the directive to see how it can be used to help us rather than at how it can be used not to help us, or just to hinder others.
I do not pretend that this proposal is the panacea for all the problems of the bloodstock industry. O that it were so simple. However, it would be a very considerable step forward, particularly for the breeders in my constituency and for those in the constituencies of both my hon. Friends and hon. Members in all parts of the House. I know that the issue of prize money is also of great significance. There is to be an attempt next month to stage an owners strike on that subject. It is to be led by one of my constituents. I intend to concentrate simply on the VAT issue, but I hope that sooner or later the House will have an opportunity to spend much longer on debating the problems that face this important industry.
I hope that the Minister who is to reply to the debate will take back to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General what I have said and what I believe may be said by the vice-chairman of the all-party racing committee, if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope that he does not intend to dismiss my proposals. If he does, I urge him to tear up the speech that he has in front of him. I simply remind him of the words of the Prime Minister and of the Chancellor of the Exchequer two weeks ago—that British interests must


come first. Clearly we are talking about a British interest. It goes far beyond the owners and stud farmers who are directly involved. It affects the employees of the industry—the many thousands of them. It affects the interests of the nearly 5 million people who attend race meetings and who, with countless millions of other people, last year paid £482 million in horse race betting duty to the Government.
If my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General intends to play the cost card, perhaps he will ponder on this: the flat-rate scheme and distance selling are ways to avoid paying VAT. My right hon. Friend has already conceded that he will not get that money. If the sales go abroad, not only will my right hon. Friend not get the VAT but all the other revenue that the Government get from the industry will likewise disappear. If stud owners do not make a profit, there is no corporation tax. If the studs go abroad, there will be no business rates either. The real cost to the Government will be the tax revenues. The real cost will also detrimentally affect the heritage of this country where horse racing has always played a major role. I believe that it must continue to do so.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will put meaning into the words of the Prime Minister. We are not crying wolf. The events of the last few months have shown clearly that the expectations that I spoke about in the House two years ago have started to happen. My constituents, and those of all my hon. Friends and of hon. Members in all parts of the House, now look to the Government to come up with solutions.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I reinforce the points expressed by the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) and his factual assessment of the state and plight of our bloodstock industry.
There is some consternation that after 1 January 1993, when the differentials in VAT between the French, Irish and ourselves come into force, purchasers in the bloodstock market will make a vast percentage of their purchases in Ireland.
There is no division on the subject between the parties. The hon. Gentleman, who is chairman of the all-party racing committee, pleaded a logical case. If the bloodstock and breeding industry is to make a reasonable commercial return, it is imperative that the playing field is level, that the differentials are equitable and, with respect to my Conservative friends, that free market competition is based on honest criteria. I say that in the nicest sense, especially being a miners' sponsored Member of Parliament.
When we met the right hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Ryder), who is now the Government Chief Whip, he expressed sympathy with us. However, as my old boss, Joe Gormley—I was his adviser—used to say, it was a bit like giving us mustard without the beef. Our concern is that people who buy bloodstock and breeding stock in the same market will inevitably buy where the lowest taxes apply.
Every member of the all-party racing committee is saying one thing—that unless the Government take notice and prompt action to enable the bloodstock industry to

compete on an equitable basis with our European competitors, a valuable source of trade and revenue may be lost.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Paice) on drawing the House's attention to this important matter in the first Adjournment debate of the autumn Session. He and I met regularly in Adjournment debates when I was a Health Minister, but he never succeeded in securing the same interest among our colleagues as he has this evening. I note that this interest is pursued not only by my hon. Friend as chairman of the all-party racing committee and by its other officers but is a subject that elicits substantial interest and sympathy in all parts of the House.
I apologise for the absence of my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, who has been chairing a meeting of ECOFIN today. The House will know that, in the normal course of events, this subject would have come within his sphere of influence in the Treasury. It is a subject to which he has devoted a substantial amount of time because he understands the importance of the industry to the Cambridgeshire economy, but, much more widely than that, as a major contributor and a major successful British industry—a British success story which any Treasury Minister should be interested to secure and to underwrite and want to continue to be a success story in the years ahead. As my hon. Friend emphasised, it creates a significant number of jobs, it creates real wealth for the British economy, and it is one that we all should want to continue to succeed. That at least is common ground in all parts of the House, and it is an ambition and an objective that is shared by Treasury Ministers.
I stress that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General is the master of all the detail in this subject. Whereas he looks after the Customs and Excise within the Treasury, I look after the Inland Revenue. Until this evening, I had thought that that meant that my cup overfloweth. However, I will undertake to the House to report to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General and, of course, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor the arguments that have been put by both hon. Members who have contributed to the debate and also to transmit the attendance in the House at this relatively inconvenient time on a relatively lightly whipped evening to ensure that the issue is taken seriously by the House of Commons.
My hon. Friend asked me to depart from whatever text had been provided for me by officials. I propose to keep the text in front of me but to elaborate a little in a way that I hope that my hon. Friend will find acceptable. He drew particular attention to the importance of VAT as one of the factors which either contributes or fails to contribute to the continued success of the livestock industry. I want to address the application of VAT to the racing livestock industry, but in particular——

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dorrell: Is my hon. Friend going to be very brief?

Mr. Shepherd: I shall be very brief. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is open to the Government to apply a lower rate of VAT if they so wish?

Mr. Dorrell: I will touch on the point about lower rate VAT, but my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East particularly wanted me to dwell on the proposition of the——

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Dorrell: Will my hon. Friend forgive me? I have three minutes left.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East wanted me to dwell particularly on the subject of the registration of racehorse owners, and I want to touch on both of those points. Taking first the point about low-rate VAT for horses, my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General is very well aware that many in the industry want us to introduce a low-rate VAT uniquely for horses or limited to defined categories of valuable horses. My hon. Friend will be well aware that it is the Government's basic proposition in dealing with the tax system that we seek to maintain a system that is as simple as possible with the minimum of discontinuities that are the inevitable consequence of a multiplicity of different rates. There would inevitably be pressure for reduced rates of VAT from a wide range of lobby groups who would feel that their case was at least as strong as that for racing bloodstock. The Government must of course be seen to be fair to all taxpayers. I understand my hon. Friend's point, but he will understand that it flies in the face of the established tax policies that the Government have pursued in this and many other matters.
I now refer to the point about VAT registration of racehorse owners because that is the point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East dwelt. My hon. Friend quoted the sixth VAT directive

which provides, as he said, that a trader is eligible for registration if he carries on an economic activity whatever the purpose. But the question is whether the ownership of racehorses and the racing of racehorses in race meetings constitutes an economic activity.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Of course it does.

Mr. Dorrell: My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) says, "Of course it does," but that is the question around which the argument revolves. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East rightly says, it is simply a matter of the enforcement of the law. This much I am clear about—whether we are talking about the Inland Revenue or the Customs and Excise, the interpretation of the law is not properly a matter for Ministers. If there is a dispute about whether the law is being properly enforced in allowing a certain racehorse owner to register for VAT, there is a well-established procedure by which a racehorse owner who feels that he is being unjustly denied the opportunity to register for VAT may prosecute that argument through the courts. As my hon. Friend quite rightly said, it is a matter of law whether an owner is entitled to register or not. The decision whether a racehorse owner falls within the categories defined within the law is a matter for decision ultimately by the courts and certainly not by Ministers.
I stress to the House and to my hon. Friend that the Government share my hon. Friend's ambition to ensure that we have in this country a system of tax law which makes possible the continuation of a successful racehorse-breeding industry. That we shall continue to do.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.